Defense vs. Offense

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Dirk is definitely a good rebounder and a decent defender. I was just using him because you brought up the mavs. We can use another player if you like.

Totally disagree about Dirk vs Payton though. Has nothing to do with the title. Dirk was just a better player. And it defies your logic because Payton is easily a far superior defender.

What Dirk provides a team is just worth more than what Payton did. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
I don't think nowitzki was ranked higher than payton even after that mvp. And just think if seattle would've won that series in 96 and payton wins the finals mvp.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Thibs is a rookie coach. And he has a young team. The jury is still out on him. Where as, dantoni has been coach for at least 5 years.

And how. Did thibs end mcgrady and mings career?[/QUOTE]

because he was the assistant of van gundy with those defensive teams they had which caused the injuries.

Dantoni also never had a center and a defensive assistant while I dont know about thibs. Most defensive teams won in their first year and likely regress the next coming years so if he cant win in the first year then likely he cant win the following years.

[QUOTE=EnoughSaid]What kind of player would you rather have and build around?

1) A player that can score in a lot of ways. Someone who you can rely on in the clutch and to always deliver. A great dribbler as well.

OR

2) A defensive player of the year candidate. Someone who hustles, grabs the boards and is always the lock down man. He can defend 4 positions and is the one you put on the other team's star.

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

One guy on defense can't have a huge impact by himself. Hustle players, and good defensive big guys are important but if I get the opportunity to get a Nowitzki or a prime Nash it is much more valuable.

[QUOTE=NJW1247]So Allen Iverson or Scottie Pippen?



Yeah I'll take the latter.[/QUOTE]

what about Ben Wallace vs Dirk Nowitzki?

Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.

Offense. You can build a good defense if you have players willing to put in the effort, a coach who stresses it consistently, and a sound scheme. Even if you have don't have particularly great defenders.

See: M.Brown, Riley, Skiles,Van Gundy etc.

You really can't do the same with offense. Plus, a great offensive player can lead even horrible teams to elite offenses (like T-Mac in 03,Kobe 07,Nash 09 etc) but a great defender doesn't guarantee a great defense if he doesn't have guys willing to put in the effort or a good scheme.

Just look at KG in Minnesota. He was playing DPOY caliber defense, yet his teams were mediocre defensively. Often outside the top 10.

[QUOTE=SCdac]Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.[/QUOTE]

But which is harder to acquire? a defensive player or an offensive player. you can get tony allens, ben wallace in the 2nd round but you need top 5 picks and pay max salaries on players like melo, amare. If those suns teams only have a center or developed a big man just like dallas, I think they wouldve won by now.

[QUOTE=SCdac]Give me both. The Mavs weren't doing shit without the defense of Chandler, Marion, Kidd, etc. And the Pistons of the mid-2000's weren't doing shit without the offense of Rip Hamilton, Billups, Sheed, etc. It takes both. In this era of bball, I think defense is the common denominator on all championship teams though. Every team seeks a shot blocking big man, and that's no coincidence. Clutch offense at the end of the game doesn't really matter if your not consistently keeping the other teams score below yours ( via team and individual defense). for instance I would not take a 30 PPG Amare (think 05 Suns) over a 20 PPG Dwight Howard, because in reality solid defense matters and Amare showed that only in glimpses.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.

i think Ben Wallace gives defense a bad name... because people say "hey would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk, because of Defense..."

the thing is that Dirk on his worst night on defense is not as bad as Wallace on his best night on offense, Wallace may shut down the paint but on offense his team plays a 4 vs 5... a 4 vs 5 with a 40-50% ft shooting big man, you just keep fouling Ben and you keep the offense out of sync... Dirk can carry your team on offense, but on defense its still a 5 vs 5.

I think its more fair if we think Defense vs Offense, where Defense is a guy who can hold his ass on offense, same with offense.

now think Dirk vs Howard, instead of Dirk vs Wallace.

plus when you think about it, wallace is a role player, a really good role player, think it... did pistons went crap when Wallace left for chicago? nope they went crap when billups left... that speaks who was the man on that team.

[QUOTE=TheFan]i think Ben Wallace gives defense a bad name... because people say "hey would you take Ben Wallace over Dirk, because of Defense..."

the thing is that Dirk on his worst night on defense is not as bad as Wallace on his best night on offense, Wallace may shut down the paint but on offense his team plays a 4 vs 5... a 4 vs 5 with 40-50% ft shooting guy... Dirk can carry your team on offense, but on defense its still a 5 vs 5.

I think its more fair if we think Defense vs Offense, where Defense is a guy who can hold his ass on offense, same with offense.

now think Dirk vs Howard, instead of Dirk vs Wallace.

plus when you think about it, wallace is a role player, a really good role player, think it... did pistons went crap when Wallace left for chicago? nope they went crap when billups left... that speaks who was the man on that team.[/QUOTE]

but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.

Well Dwight Howard is the DPOY every year...how many championships?
Kobe is a VERY skilled offensive player...What About Him?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.[/QUOTE]

well, youre right Howard has become a beast on offense... but even when Howard was grabbing boards/blocking shots and Turkuglu was doing the shot jacking, the Magic did great with howard as the main piece.

I agree that a Kobe Bryant/Nowitzki is more important, because the league is very offense oriented, but a big man shutting down can get the job done, its lakers length advantage that makes the Lakers not Kobe.

I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.

[QUOTE=GoldNugg21]I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

I think the Howard vs Dirk thing pretty much ends the debate. For those that favor defense....then on paper Howard should be significantly better than Dirk. He's the best defender in the league and he's a center...so he plays the highest impact defensive position. He's also a much better rebounder. He also gives you 23 points on high efficiency and often commands a double. So not only is he the best defender in the league, but he's also one of the best offensive players as well.

And even with all of the above. Dirk vs Howard is a debate. I think Dirk was better last year, but obviously I have no issue with someone taking Howard.

But the very fact that its debatable pretty much proves that the skills Dirk provides and the impact he has through his offense and late game play is more significant.

[QUOTE=TheFan]

but a big man shutting down can get the job done, its lakers length advantage that makes the Lakers not Kobe.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll:

The 08-10 Lakers won primary because of their dominant [I]offense[/I] and Kobe was [B]by far[/B] the biggest reason for that. They're defense wasn't even good in the 2010 PS (109 ORTG) and they still won it all due to Kobe's ridiculous play (especially after having his knee drained) and a great offense.

[QUOTE=GoldNugg21]I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself. Rodman, but he's pretty far down the list in comparison to players like Barkley and Malone.

Simply put, a team effort will outdo a great individual effort on defense every time. A great big man defender certainly has a great impact, but without a team effort, you still won't have a great defensive team. A team with no great offensive players can still be a great offensive team for about 40 minutes, but once crunch time comes around, if you don't have a great offensive player that can bail you out on tough possesions and take a majority of the oppositions focus, taking the pressure off of other players, it's difficult going. The post Melo Nuggets were a great example. They were every bit as good as the Thunder in that series until the end of games. They just couldn't find anyone to make a tough basket, while the Thunder had Durant to bail them out. That great offensive player was the difference.

I can't think of a situation where the reverse was true. I'm sure they happen here and there, but more often then not, a great offensive player will have a bigger impact, especially late in games, then a great defensive player. Defense is much more of a team effort in the NBA than offense, because with the athletes, the overall level of defense is good enough that when focused, it's almost impossible for the offense to run classic sets and get good shots consistently. Thats why it comes down to players who can make tough, big shots.[/QUOTE]
Great post.

[QUOTE=Jacks3]Offense. You can build a good defense if you have players willing to put in the effort, a coach who stresses it consistently, and a sound scheme. Even if you have don't have particularly great defenders.

See: M.Brown, Riley, Skiles,Van Gundy etc.

You really can't do the same with offense. Plus, a great offensive player can lead even horrible teams to elite offenses (like T-Mac in 03,Kobe 07,Nash 09 etc) but a great defender doesn't guarantee a great defense if he doesn't have guys willing to put in the effort or a good scheme.

Just look at KG in Minnesota. He was playing DPOY caliber defense, yet his teams were mediocre defensively. Often outside the top 10.[/QUOTE]
But do you realize how difficult it is to get a team that commited to playing defense? And most of the teams and coaches you named have or had some pretty good defenders on them.

And there have been players that were more defensive oriented that have done much better than the players you named with even less talent. Scottie Pippen in 95, Jason Kidd in 04 and 05 I believe it was. Those teams didn't have big time scorers.but they did far better than the players you mentioned

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.[/QUOTE]
Ok, scrap the centers. Let's just look at wing players. And under similar circumstances. Kobe, nash, and tmac didn't do any better than kidd, pippen and payton. The main reason thhe lakers won was because no team could match up with them down low.

[QUOTE=knicksman]But which is harder to acquire? a defensive player or an offensive player. you can get tony allens, ben wallace in the 2nd round but you need top 5 picks and pay max salaries on players like melo, amare. If those suns teams only have a center or developed a big man just like dallas, I think they wouldve won by now.[/QUOTE]

But what exactly does being offensively elite guarantee you? George Gervin, Kevin Durant, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, McGrady, etc, what have they earned to make you say have that kind of prime-time scorer goes hand in hand with a championship?... Players like Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, etc, were all great defensive players on top of being great offensive players.... Obviously it's a team game, it's shortsighted to pin accomplishments (or lack thereof) solely on one player. But some of these players give a team a "head start" so to speak, by being (or becoming) great defensive players. If I'm a GM, I'm looking for that head start, which is why I, and most people, fully understood Greg Oden being picked over Durant at the time. Yes, every winning team is going to need an elite offensive player, but with out a defensive presence of some kind to compensate, it's useless because defense in the playoffs is all-important. Every team has to be balanced, so at some point in this discussion we're just splitting hairs, but I lean towards defense more than offense... when talking championships... not necessarily "Hall of Fame", which is slightly different IMO, more of a "life time achievement" award kind of thing.

The 08-10 Lakers won primary because of their dominant offense and Kobe was [B]by far[/B] the biggest reason for that. They're defense wasn't even good in the 2010 PS (109 ORTG) and they still won it all due to Kobe's ridiculous play (especially after having his knee drained) and a great offense.

Yeah, they won it all due to Bynum's epic 6/4 averages (dude didn't even play in 2008 and they still made the Finals), or Odom "Mr. Inconsistent". :oldlol:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But do you realize how difficult it is to get a team that commited to playing defense? And most of the teams and coaches you named have or had some pretty good defenders on them. [/QUOTE]
Considering those coaches I listed led very solid offenses wherever they went, no. I don't think it's particularly hard to get players committed assuming they're not a bunch of malcontents or if there's just horrible chemistry in the locker-room.

None of these teams had particularly great defensive talent and they were still very solid defensively:
2007 Bulls with Skiles (#1 ranked defense)
2010 Bulls with Spoelstra (#6 ranked defense)
2010 Bucks with Skiles(#2 ranked defense, they were #15 the year before he got there)
2007 Cavs (4th ranked defense)
2009 Bobcats (7th ranked defense, #20 before Brown year before Brown arrived)
2010 Bobcats (#1 ranked defense)

Etc, etc

The fact is, coaches and effort can make a HUGE impact on a team's defense even if they don't have much talent, because defense is all about effort, execution, discipline, schemes, focus. Those are things you can teach.

Offense is much more difficult to create. You need the inherent talent for that.




[QUOTE]And there have been players that were more defensive oriented that have done much better than the players you named with even less talent. Scottie Pippen in 95, Jason Kidd in 04 and 05 I believe it was. Those teams didn't have big time scorers.but they did far better than the players you mentioned[/QUOTE]
This is such a sweeping, broad statement. I mean, Kidd in NJ played in perhaps the worst conference ever, and it's not like he had supporting casts anywhere near as bad as the guys I listed. You have to look at the context.

[QUOTE=GoldNugg21]I think it's pretty evident that on an individual level, you take the offensive player. Just look at a top 50 NBA player list, and tell me how many of those guys were known for their defense. Russell obviously, but he had the luxury of being surrounded by excellent offensive players throughout his career, and was exceptional on that end himself.

[/QUOTE]

That's not particularly true. The players around Russell were not that good offensively especially after Cousy retired and the Celtics generally were the worst offensive team in the league for much of the 60's.

[QUOTE=Jacks3]Considering those coaches I listed led very solid offenses wherever they went, no. I don't think it's particularly hard to get players committed assuming they're not a bunch of malcontents or if there's just horrible chemistry in the locker-room.

None of these teams had particularly great defensive talent and they were still very solid defensively:
2007 Bulls with Skiles (#1 ranked defense)
2010 Bulls with Spoelstra (#6 ranked defense)
2010 Bucks with Skiles(#2 ranked defense, they were #15 the year before he got there)
2007 Cavs (4th ranked defense)
2009 Bobcats (7th ranked defense, #20 before Brown year before Brown arrived)
2010 Bobcats (#1 ranked defense)

Etc, etc

The fact is, coaches and effort can make a HUGE impact on a team's defense even if they don't have much talent, because defense is all about effort, execution, discipline, schemes, focus. Those are things you can teach.

Offense is much more difficult to create. You need the inherent talent for that.





This is such a sweeping, broad statement. I mean, Kidd in NJ played in perhaps the worst conference ever, and it's not like he had supporting casts anywhere near as bad as the guys I listed. You have to look at the context.[/QUOTE]
The Bulls in 07 had a team full of good defensive players. Deng, Hinrich, Wallace, Nocioni, P.J. Brown, Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefalosha all were very good defensive players.

The 09 Cavs had James, Hughes, Big Z, Varejo, and Eric Snow

The bobcats had Jackson,, Wallace, Mohamed, Chandler, Felton, Tyrus Thomas.

All had very good records. And minus the cavs (lebron james) none of the teams you mentioned had big time scorers.

And what was so broad about the players I listed? You gave a list of playerrs you feel support your view, I gave you a list of players that support my view.

You say kidd shouldn't count because he played in a conference that was weak at the time. But so did mcgrady. There really isn't much of a difference.

It depends on defensive player's offensive impact.

If we are talking about something like Carmelo Anthony vs. Dennis Rodman/Ben Wallace, without a doubt it's Carmelo.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]but that is the point. even with Howard's far superior defense/rebounding...its still debatable on who the better player is right now.

so you are talking about the best defender in the league who happens to play center (easily the highest impact defensive position) and a very good offensive player that gives you 23/14/2 a night on near 60% from the field

and its debatable as to which player is better. i think that answers the question.[/QUOTE]
Lol that's not debatable. Id be willing to bet that if every GM had to pick between howard and nowitzki, howard would win in a landslide. Dirk is a flavor of the month. He has always been considered one of the best players in the league, but its been only this year that he's broke top 5. And that's due largely to the mavs winning this years championship. While howard has really been no lower than top 5 since he's been in the league.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok, scrap the centers. Let's just look at wing players. And under similar circumstances. Kobe, nash, and tmac didn't do any better than kidd, pippen and payton. The main reason thhe lakers won was because no team could match up with them down low.[/QUOTE]

well, agree to disagree. kobe was simply just a better player than pippen. i think nash was better than payton. and i'd take a healthy t-mac over kidd.

but really, that is shifting the argument a little because all of those defensive guys you mentioned were also excellent offensive players as well.

i do think kidd was better than nash overall, but nash is tough because he is arguably one of the worst defensive players in the history of the league. And Kidd is also a great overall offensive player to go along with his defense/rebounding.

But again, nobody would laugh you out of the room if you said Nash was a better player than both kidd and payton....and that defies your logic of defense being more important individually. Because if that was the case, two elite defenders like Kidd and Payton that also are very good to great offensively should be significantly better than one of the most inept defenders ever.

Not the case though. Its debatable.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol that's not debatable. Id be willing to bet that if every GM had to pick between howard and nowitzki, howard would win in a landslide. Dirk is a flavor of the month. He has always been considered one of the best players in the league, but its been only this year that he's broke top 5. And that's due largely to the mavs winning this years championship. While howard has really been no lower than top 5 since he's been in the league.[/QUOTE]

uh no. simply no.

why do you keep holding onto these bs perceptions? who cares what people thought. they were clearly wrong. i think dirk has been better than howard pretty much every year they've been in the league.

and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.

remember when howard made the finals in 09 and his team had chances to win those two games that went to OT? remember when Howard couldn't make a free throw or carry the team offensively late? yep...that is what we are talking about.

don't give me his bs about how dirk vs howard is not debatable. that is straight up nonsense and you know it.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]well, agree to disagree. kobe was simply just a better player than pippen. i think nash was better than payton. and i'd take a healthy t-mac over kidd.

but really, that is shifting the argument a little because all of those defensive guys you mentioned were also excellent offensive players as well.

i do think kidd was better than nash overall, but nash is tough because he is arguably one of the worst defensive players in the history of the league. And Kidd is also a great overall offensive player to go along with his defense/rebounding.

But again, nobody would laugh you out of the room if you said Nash was a better player than both kidd and payton....and that defies your logic of defense being more important individually. Because if that was the case, two elite defenders like Kidd and Payton that also are very good to great offensively should be significantly better than one of the most inept defenders ever.

Not the case though. Its debatable.[/QUOTE]
But the players you mentioned aren't one dimensional either. Even nash who can make plays for himself as well as others. There is no one player that you can build a team around just based on them putting the ball in the basket and they are good at anything else. Those players become 6th men. Ben Gordon, Andrew Toney, Vinnie Johnson, Jason Terry. And their polar opposites would be guys like bobby jones, bruce bowen, michael cooper. Guys like the ones I listed first, are great for putting the ball in the basket. But not much else.

And again, when you say who's better. Your ranking them based on accomplishments. Not talent. Then, to compund your folly, you take those accomplishments and translate it to one on one play I.E. this play has an mvp and this player doesn't so the latter isn't as good. It just doesn't work like that. I mean, sure you can say that when ranking players. But you can confuse ranking players with whose more talented.

You know why the nba/players will never hold 1v1 competitions during the all-star game? Because some nobody 12th man will end up beating kobe bryant and lebron james and it'll throw everyone ranking system out of whack.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But the players you mentioned aren't one dimensional either. Even nash who can make plays for himself as well as others. There is no one player that you can build a team around just based on them putting the ball in the basket and they are good at anything else. Those players become 6th men. Ben Gordon, Andrew Toney, Vinnie Johnson, Jason Terry. And their polar opposites would be guys like bobby jones, bruce bowen, michael cooper. Guys like the ones I listed first, are great for putting the ball in the basket. But not much else.

And again, when you say who's better. Your ranking them based on accomplishments. Not talent. Then, to compund your folly, you take those accomplishments and translate it to one on one play I.E. this play has an mvp and this player doesn't so the latter isn't as good. It just doesn't work like that. I mean, sure you can say that when ranking players. But you can confuse ranking players with whose more talented.

You know why the nba/players will never hold 1v1 competitions during the all-star game? Because some nobody 12th man will end up beating kobe bryant and lebron james and it'll throw everyone ranking system out of whack.[/QUOTE]

i'm not ranking them by accomplishments. i just disagree with you. i think kobe is simply a better player than pippen. you don't. that is ultimately the perfect breakdown of this discussion.

you think that pippen's all around play and better defense trumps kobe's ability to dominate games with his scoring and late game play. we've had this talk before. i could not disagree more. the example last time was you saying that pippen was a better basketball player than magic. another great example of this. i just disagree. i think what magic brought was simply more beneficial to winning than what pippen did.

i don't think nash is better than payton because of accomplishments. i think so because i think nash is a better player and i'd pick him first to play pg on my team. same with kobe over pippen.....kidd vs tmac is a little closer for me, but i'd take tmac at his best over kidd at his probably...but its close. hard to say.

i'm not discounting defense and all around play, i just think these elite offensive players that we are talking about have more value.

and i'd add that its why that is reaching here...you use popular opinion constantly....and then turn around and claim that pippen was a better player than both magic and kobe. LOL...i find it very difficult to have this debate with someone that watched all three of them play and would take pippen first. doesn't mean i'm right or anything....i just feel like we are watching two different games if you honestly believe that.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]uh no. simply no.

why do you keep holding onto these bs perceptions? who cares what people thought. they were clearly wrong. i think dirk has been better than howard pretty much every year they've been in the league.

and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.

remember when howard made the finals in 09 and his team had chances to win those two games that went to OT? remember when Howard couldn't make a free throw or carry the team offensively late? yep...that is what we are talking about.

don't give me his bs about how dirk vs howard is not debatable. that is straight up nonsense and you know it.[/QUOTE]
Well Ft shooting is defintely a weakness of Howard. But please don't bring up howards short commings and leave out nowitzkis. Your so big on having players that are clutch, what happened to the dirk led mavs in 06? Or vs golden state? Why didn't he shoot those teams to victory? Just to refresh, in the 06 finals, a series that the mavs had homecourt and were favored to win. What happend in game 5? When with the series tied 2-2, terry scored 35, josh howard had 25 and dirk had 20 on 42% shooting. The mavs lost by 1 pt. Or how bout game 6? The mavs lost by 3. Where was that clutch shooting then?

Or what about the following year when the dirk led 67 win mavs got their ass handed to them by the 8th seeded warriors. And even if you feel the warriors were better than an 8th seed, they sure as hell weren't 67 win/ 1st seed better, which the mavs were.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle.

[QUOTE=SCdac]But what exactly does being offensively elite guarantee you? George Gervin, Kevin Durant, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, McGrady, etc, what have they earned to make you say have that kind of prime-time scorer goes hand in hand with a championship?... Players like Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, etc, were all great defensive players on top of being great offensive players.... Obviously it's a team game, it's shortsighted to pin accomplishments (or lack thereof) solely on one player. But some of these players give a team a "head start" so to speak, by being (or becoming) great defensive players. If I'm a GM, I'm looking for that head start, which is why I, and most people, fully understood Greg Oden being picked over Durant at the time. Yes, every winning team is going to need an elite offensive player, but with out a defensive presence of some kind to compensate, it's useless because defense in the playoffs is all-important. Every team has to be balanced, so at some point in this discussion we're just splitting hairs, but I lean towards defense more than offense... when talking championships... not necessarily "Hall of Fame", which is slightly different IMO, more of a "life time achievement" award kind of thing.[/QUOTE]


you can also say with defensive players. what has mutombo, mourning, howard done? Or if jordan, hakeem,duncan, were never great offensive players, do you think they have won. Why cant chandler win 50+ wins in charlotte while dirk can win 50+ every season. You need both but when it comes to skills, it is easier to play defense thats why they can be gotten in the 2nd round. which makes offensive players harder to acquire, so ill go with offense..

[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]what about Ben Wallace vs Dirk Nowitzki?[/QUOTE]


Dirk Nowitzki is a great dribbler? Ben Wallace can guard 4 out of 5 positions?



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Well Ft shooting is defintely a weakness of Howard. But please don't bring up howards short commings and leave out nowitzkis. Your so big on having players that are clutch, what happened to the dirk led mavs in 06? Or vs golden state? Why didn't he shoot those teams to victory? Just to refresh, in the 06 finals, a series that the mavs had homecourt and were favored to win. What happend in game 5? When with the series tied 2-2, terry scored 35, josh howard had 25 and dirk had 20 on 42% shooting. The mavs lost by 1 pt. Or how bout game 6? The mavs lost by 3. Where was that clutch shooting then?

Or what about the following year when the dirk led 67 win mavs got their ass handed to them by the 8th seeded warriors. And even if you feel the warriors were better than an 8th seed, they sure as hell weren't 67 win/ 1st seed better, which the mavs were.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle.[/QUOTE]

its clear you didn't watch game 5....lol. Dirk was amazing down the stretch and actually made a potential game winning shot over Shaq with 9 seconds left in OT.

Dirk was absolutely clutch.

And you are confusing things. I'm not saying Dirk is way better than Howard. I'm saying its absolutely debatable as to who the better player was last year and the years before. I lean towards Dirk....but have no issue with somebody taking Howard.

Doesn't that throw your entire premise away though? If defense is more important, then Howard should be easily better than Dirk as Howard is by far the best defender in the league. And he's very good offensively as well.

And sorry...it is debatable. So clearly something Dirk does has very high value. And that would be his ability to carry a team scoring wise and take over late in games.

Please don't try to give me a history lesson on Dirk. That isn't what this is about...but regardless, you dont' even know what actually went down in game 5 of that series. Get a clue.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]and if owners/gm's had to pick howard or dirk for last year....[B]i bet almost all of them would pick Dirk.[/B][/QUOTE]

that's probably not true.

Everybody knows Dirk is a super star and one of the best scorers in the league, but all things being equal (as in, the teams they play for), Dwight probably has more "value", and this is something GM's thought going into the 10-11 season... and I don't think it's all about being younger, either.

I'm not saying "put Howard on the Mavs and they'd do better", I'm saying, your idea of what you think others value is... off.

This is from the 2010-2011 NBA GM survey:

Who will win the 2010-11 MVP?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 66.7%
2. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 25.9%
Also receiving votes:
[B]Dwight Howard, Orlando[/B]; LeBron James, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 69.0%

If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 55.6%
2. LeBron James, Miami 25.9%
3. Kobe Bryant, Lakers; [B]Dwight Howard, Magic 7.4%[/B]
5. Dwyane Wade, Miami 3.7%
- Last year: LeBron James 78.6%

Which player forces opposing coaches to make the most adjustments [in the here and now]?

1. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 35.7%
2. LeBron James, Miami 28.6%
[B]3. Dwight Howard, Orlando 17.9%[/B]
4. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 10.7%
Also receiving votes:
Chris Paul, New Orleans; Dwyane Wade, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 39.3%

2010-2011 end of the season MVP voting:

1. Derrick Rose
[B]2. Dwight Howard (DPOY, All-NBA 1st team, All-NBA Defense 1st team)[/B]
3. Lebron James
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki (All-NBA 2nd team)

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]i'm not ranking them by accomplishments. i just disagree with you. i think kobe is simply a better player than pippen. you don't. that is ultimately the perfect breakdown of this discussion.

you think that pippen's all around play and better defense trumps kobe's ability to dominate games with his scoring and late game play. we've had this talk before. i could not disagree more. the example last time was you saying that pippen was a better basketball player than magic. another great example of this. i just disagree. i think what magic brought was simply more beneficial to winning than what pippen did.

i don't think nash is better than payton because of accomplishments. i think so because i think nash is a better player and i'd pick him first to play pg on my team. same with kobe over pippen.....kidd vs tmac is a little closer for me, but i'd take tmac at his best over kidd at his probably...but its close. hard to say.

i'm not discounting defense and all around play, i just think these elite offensive players that we are talking about have more value.

and i'd add that its why that is reaching here...you use popular opinion constantly....and then turn around and claim that pippen was a better player than both magic and kobe. LOL...i find it very difficult to have this debate with someone that watched all three of them play and would take pippen first. doesn't mean i'm right or anything....i just feel like we are watching two different games if you honestly believe that.[/QUOTE]
You asked me a question and I answered it. If you would've asked me who is the consensus best between whoever, then id answer accordingly.

Like I've said before, how can you say whose better? The kobe, magics, jordans.... they had the best talent in the league around them. I just don't see how anyone of that caliber and that talent couldn't win with similar talent. I just don't see how or why if you don't replace a raw kenyon martin and a young richard jefferson with let's say prime shawn kemp and prime gerald wallace along with an upgrade at center, the nets don't win at least one championship.

Even with pippen. Just upgrading that 94 team wiith mitch richmond in my opinion gets them over the top. They lost iin 7 to the knicks who lost in 7 to the eventual champion rockets.

The payton led soncis lost to arguably the greatest team ever.

On the other end of the spectrum. Kobe was able to shoot low 40% as well as dirk and they get all this pub? THEY HAD THE BEST TEAM. That's all I've ever tried to say. They won not because they themselves were really any better than other players, they just had the best team. I'm still waiting for kobe to will a team to a championship.

[QUOTE=SCdac]that's probably not true.

Everybody knows Dirk is a super star and one of the best scorers in the league, but all things being equal (as in, the teams they play for), Dwight probably has more "value", and this is something GM's thought going into the 10-11 season... and I don't think it's all about being younger, either.

I'm not saying "put Howard on the Mavs and they'd do better", I'm saying, your idea of what you think others value is... off.

This is from the 2010-2011 NBA GM survey:

Who will win the 2010-11 MVP?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 66.7%
2. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 25.9%
Also receiving votes:
[B]Dwight Howard, Orlando[/B]; LeBron James, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 69.0%

If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?

1. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 55.6%
2. LeBron James, Miami 25.9%
3. Kobe Bryant, Lakers; [B]Dwight Howard, Magic 7.4%[/B]
5. Dwyane Wade, Miami 3.7%
- Last year: LeBron James 78.6%

Which player forces opposing coaches to make the most adjustments [in the here and now]?

1. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 35.7%
2. LeBron James, Miami 28.6%
[B]3. Dwight Howard, Orlando 17.9%[/B]
4. Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City 10.7%
Also receiving votes:
Chris Paul, New Orleans; Dwyane Wade, Miami
- Last year: LeBron James 39.3%

2010-2011 end of the season MVP voting:

1. Derrick Rose
[B]2. Dwight Howard (DPOY, All-NBA 1st team, All-NBA Defense 1st team)[/B]
3. Lebron James
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki (All-NBA 2nd team)[/QUOTE]

I meant after watching the season play out. Not before the season. After watching last year play out...which we all did. I bet most would take Dirk over Howard....for last year. Not for the future or anything.

But that really isn't the point. Howard was definitely better this year than he was in 09. Dirk was probably at his best overall as a player in 09. Take a poll after the 09 season? Howard wins it for all the reasons I think Dirk would get the nod after this year.

The point is simple. If you gave me the choice between Howard and Dirk to build a team around to make a run at the title at the start of the playoffs. I'd take Dirk. I have no issue with somebody taking Howard though. But its debatable. Its not like Dirk is way better than Howard or vice versa.

And that pretty much destroys 97 Bulls argument right there. How could it be debatable if defense is more important? Doesn't make any type of sense logically speaking.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]You asked me a question and I answered it. If you would've asked me who is the consensus best between whoever, then id answer accordingly.

Like I've said before, how can you say whose better? The kobe, magics, jordans.... they had the best talent in the league around them. I just don't see how anyone of that caliber and that talent couldn't win with similar talent. I just don't see how or why if you don't replace a raw kenyon martin and a young richard jefferson with let's say prime shawn kemp and prime gerald wallace along with an upgrade at center, the nets don't win at least one championship.

Even with pippen. Just upgrading that 94 team wiith mitch richmond in my opinion gets them over the top. They lost iin 7 to the knicks who lost in 7 to the eventual champion rockets.

The payton led soncis lost to arguably the greatest team ever.

On the other end of the spectrum. Kobe was able to shoot low 40% as well as dirk and they get all this pub? THEY HAD THE BEST TEAM. That's all I've ever tried to say. They won not because they themselves were really any better than other players, they just had the best team. I'm still waiting for kobe to will a team to a championship.[/QUOTE]

And this is where we disagree.

It boils down to Pippen ultimately for you. He's the best example of this. A player that can defend 4 positions. Probably the best perimeter defender all things considered ever.

You think he's better than guys like Dirk, Magic, and Kobe. I could not disagree more. We've been over this time and time again. Neither one of us will budge.

I will say though, that if popular opinion is such a big part of your arguments...i don't understand the logic of supporting Pippen over the like of Kobe and Magic. Nobody would agree with you. Can't have it both ways.

He thinks Pippen is better than Magic?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

another example. barkley vs pippen.

i think barkely was clearly the superior player. who was better in your opinion?

[QUOTE=knicksman]you can also say with defensive players. what has mutombo, mourning, howard done? Or if jordan, hakeem,duncan, were never great offensive players, do you think they have won. Why cant chandler win 50+ wins in charlotte while dirk can win 50+ every season. You need both but when it comes to skills, it is easier to play defense thats why they can be gotten in the 2nd round. which makes offensive players harder to acquire, so ill go with offense..[/QUOTE]
Again, nobody wins games and nobody loses games on their own. Dirk has routinely had the best talent around him on a yearly basis.