Championship teams of the last 2 decades rebuilt around Guards

A championship team needs a big and those who are shorter.

If we're talking about league coveted roles, it's more of 'wings' league than a guards one. Or rather guys that have a prototypical wing's height. Guys like Cade will play a guard, but at 6'8" he's got that wing's height which is why he's attractive.

Guards are important, but there are also so many.

(teams) To find good competent guards are not hard
(players) to be the one of the good guards is hard. (because you have to stand out - among many)

 

Lol this is so dumb. You wanna look at past championships? Ok.

2020: Best player is Lebron
2019: Best player is Kawhi
2018: Best player is KD
2017: best player is KD
2016: Best player is Lebron

So what we can see here is SFs are the no 1 player in the last 5 years therefore the pick should be Scottie Barnes. Why are you bringing up Green? The last time SG was the best player to win a ring was Kobe right? His last ring was in 2010, 11 yrs ago. So OP you really shouldnt be taking Green we should be taking an SF like Scottie Barnes.

We cant deny looking in history SGs havent really done much...Joe Johnson, James Harden, Zach Lavin etc they havent won ****. Booker about to be destroyed by Giannis so...the only superstar SG to win a ring is Klay Thompson and he is a supporting character right? He isnt the foundational piece in a championship. Wade isnt a foundational piece either he is basically the Robin to Lebron.

What we have see is 6'8 sfs are the one who really win rings so we should pick Scottie Barnes instead because he is the 6'9 wing left on the board at 2. Thats what history says.

 

What we have seen is big men still play a part in a championship team. What we have also seen is SG play more of a role player role doing just catch and shoot and defending rather than being the focal point of the offense. The 6'8 forward is the no 1 option rather the sg.

2020: Danny Green
2019: Danny Green
2018: Klay Thompson
2017; Klay Thompson
2016: Iman Shumpert/JR Smith

Like I said man, based on past history we should be taking Scottie Barnes.

 

Agree with you OP. KAT and Zion are next that will leave their team to join a perimeter star player elsewhere

 

I agree with you - been saying the same thing in various threads for a while. Bigs offer a much longer path to contention if at all. Scoring and play making Guards and Forwards can impact the game sooner and generally “unlock” the talents of those around them with their gravity. Bigs don’t have that same gravity and generally don’t make lesser players around them more effective.

I think Harden is a good example of a player who frankly was underrated because the talent around him during his tenure wasn’t great but those supporting players around him all seemed better than what they were in real life. Look at the play of his role players with him on the court vs the play of those same players when they went to other teams or when Harden sat on the bench. I just don’t think you see the same effect from big men.

AD is a great example of a dominant modern big who had little playoff success until he was paired with an elite playmaker/scorer in Lebron. Lebron as the principle ball handler just raises the floor of those around him in ways that AD can’t working from the elbow or the block half the time.

…the other important point to make to other posters here is Goals -is out primary goal that we want to get better next year, is it to fill a weakness from this years team, or is it to win a title eventually? Lots of players make us better in the draft but maybe only a handful of players make us a better rebounding team next year…but what does being a better rebounding team mean when really what we want is to win a title in the future after being so close so many times in the Harden era.

 

I think people are trying to say perimeter players regardless of the traditional position they are given. Not necessarily a "guard." Cade, Green, Suggs all fit the description and the point is based on a very clear trend of these front court players/bigs all leaving their team to join a perimeter star. It seems to be a trend that will continue with players like KAT and Zion, just a matter of time.
The why of it? Sure, some of it is bad front office decisions. Do these teams just not know how to build around their big? Blown draft picks trying to fit pieces around the star big. Some of it is that a big can have enough of an impact that your team is able to move up from the bottom, but only into the middle tier of teams, leaving you on the treadmill of mediocrity until the star big grows frustrated and wants to bolt.

Honestly, we were doing the same with Hakeem. The turnaround from those terrible rosters to attacking Hakeems character and accusing him of faking the injury and that entire situation, any other guy would have left. Amazing we broke through, but it took one in a million comebacks and resilience.

 

great post - I would just add that I believe those wing/guard playmakers raise the floor of those around them in a way that means something significant when operating under a salary cap where you realistically can only afford 2 stars and maybe a few mid tier guys or 3 stars and all league average players and/or vet buyout guys to surround them. You just don’t get the same “floor raising of teammates around them” value from bigs and to your point, a good big puts you in a mid lottery draft spot where you generally won’t get the opportunity to draft those types of guards/forwards to supplement without taking projects who may take a little longer to develop which generally doesn’t jive with the time table of your top tier lotto big’s timeline.

 

Yup. Dumb thread is dumb

 

If you're EXPECTING our #2 pick to turn into the best player on a title team, you're likely going to be sorely disappointed. The goal is to pick a foundational cornerstone for the future.

Looking at the history of the 2nd overall pick, it isn't a stretch to say our undrafted Jae'Sean Tate could end up having a longer and more prolific career than whomever we pick. Just the way it goes sometimes

 

The guards vs big men debate is fascinating... and it’s true that the recent trend favors the guards.

The interesting part is when you ask why . Is it a function of the game changing and favoring guards ? Or are the best players just what height they are and it’s a random distribution ?

for sure if you are bigger stronger and more athletic you will have an advantage (holding other variables constant) . Nba teams have looked at the landscape and it does seem that with the 3 and the current meta , they favor 2 inches of length over 2 inches of height . Skill matters and generally if you are and have been smaller you have to develop more skill to keep playing as the level increases.

That being said , some big guys are just as skilled or very nearly as skilled as smaller players. Is the skill level evening out ?

I remember a few years ago if you look at shooting by position , PF had the highest 3pt%. Was that a function of defenses giving them too many corner 3’s ? Or did teams just start playing better shooters at PF ?

I wonder what the breakdown is like today . AND shooting is only one dimension.

Basically , I think it’s too complicated to answer . Too many variables to figure out and could you even measure ?

As it goes for the draft you just gotta take the best player and fit for the organization.

 

looks like we should be doing everything possible to move up and draft Cade

 

Deleted

 

It doesnt favor guards it favors forwards. Forwards nowadays are basically big men with guard skills. Cp3 and Booker are guards Giannis and Middleton are forwards thats why owned Cp3 and Booker.

 

Best player on the recent championship teams are all forwards. Clearly we need to draft someone along those lines to follow the winning trend.

More reason to pick Mobley since he's a big who can shoot, defend and dribble.

 

As @roslolian said, maybe we can/should draft the next great forward?

LeBron, Durant, Kawhi, Giannis,…
______________
LeBron
Kawhi
Durant
Durant
LeBron
Curry(Iguodala FMVP)
Kawhi
LeBron
LeBron
Dirk
Kobe
Kobe
Pierce
Parker
Wade
Duncan
Billups
Duncan
O’Neal
O’Neal
O’Neal

 

If we wanna go the history route the Rox should only consider trading up for Cade, Drafting Mobley or trading down and getting Barnes and some other dude (my preferred choice atm). Mobley likely wont be the best player in a champ team but he will play a part in it as all champ teamd have had some sort of star big men.

 

I never said expect, but you sure do hope. I think you misunderstood the comment, because by saying foundational cornerstone for the future vs. best player on a title team, I am not sure how those are mutually exclusive. I would hope for the player to become a super star at 2nd overall pick, and I do not think it is unreasonable. If you look at the list of #2 overall picks, they are either a star player or they are a bust/fringe NBA player. You don't see much in between. The way I read your post about finding a foundational cornerstone, my assumption is you mean a guy who is a bonified starter in the NBA? Historically teams go all or nothing when you have a pick this high, you should not pick a safe bet thinking he can be a starter for us, and bypass guys that have super-star generational talent potential.

I never said what to expect at #2, but you can definitely see that when people select bigs early in the draft, they tend to have a much higher rate of failure than guards who are picked high.

http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/2nd-overall/20509/

 

... what??

If you have an opportunity to get a sure-fire all-star in the draft, you don't pass it up for a "could be superstar" that just as easily could be a bust. There is literally no reason to swing for the fences if you're the front office and believe to have a safe bet at the #2, whether that "safe bet" be any of the top 4 prospects of your choice.

I don't understand this fake reality in which teams try and get a superstar with every high pick. There's less than 10 total "Super-Stars" in the entire NBA if you're using that term properly, that word is typically reserved for players who have the ability to be the best player on a title team. Teams try and pick the best fit and the best option available, there's no "swing for muh stars and if you miss you're on the moon" or something especially in a deep draft with plenty of options. The science of drafting in the NBA is so poorly understood that you can have a team at #2 trying to draft a superstar and a team at #41 trying to draft a role-player, and the #41 can get the superstar (Jokic) Hell, it feels like the mid-lottery hits on stars better than the high lottery. If you have a sure thing you take it, you don't pass on it for a "could-be" with a foggy potential fit.

Again, use whatever players you want to understand my position. I don't care who you think is to be the "sure thing" and the "could be", just that we should take the "sure thing" if the front office believes to have one available. There is a reality in which Toronto or Cleveland ends up with a perennial all-star and we end up with a complete bust because we fell in love with a could be prospect and got greedy, acknowledge that reality and weigh the options.

Also FWIW, players like Morant weren't swing for the fences picks with players like R.J Barrett still on the board. Remember how hyped people were for Barrett? Memphis didn't buy the hype, made the right call and took the sure thing.