• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Cavaliers need to emulate OKC & how they were built

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Way too many assumptions being made. You are assuming that everything that can go right, will go right, 100% of the time... That obviously isn't going to happen, although that's not necessarily a bad thing. We definitely want to suck this year.

The sad thing is that even if all that happened, we still wouldn't even sniff the playoffs. :chuckles:

I look at winning a championship (at least for a team that can't magically acquire good free agents) like running through a wall. If all you do is push forward, that's not going to be of much use. You'll be stuck forever. You need to take a few steps back (lose) and gain some potential energy (Draft picks and young talent) so that, when you let go, you're going to have the momentum (talent/ability) to break through that wall. I think three years (at minimum two years if we have a lot of great hits) of staying high in the lottery is the best way to do this.
 
Way too many assumptions being made. You are assuming that everything that can go right, will go right, 100% of the time... That obviously isn't going to happen, although that's not necessarily a bad thing. We definitely want to suck this year.

The sad thing is that even if all that happened, we still wouldn't even sniff the playoffs. :chuckles:

Plus, even "healthy" Jamison wouldn't help us win games. Now that is a man that has played on some terrible teams. He spent half a season helping Washington get Wall and a whole season helping us get Kyrie.
 
Let's just put aside the Thunder for a moment. They are nice, but as of yet unproven in the play-offs.

Most teams who have won in the past decades had a superstar on the team and most where from big markets. The exceptions being San Antonio (small market) and Detroit (star-less, team oriented and focus on D).

I wonder if Dirk would have been called a superstar if not for last season's title, but I guess that is for another thread.

In every plan, some things are needed: a good owner, a good coach, good management, continuity, some luck. I think the biggest question here is Grant. The owner is good, so is the coach, and continuity is something that requires time. You can't control luck.

People are easy to dismiss the Pistons' strategy because it only happened once. But how many teams really strike gold with a superstar capable of carrying a team to a championship? A superstar who stays healthy, stays with the team etc? It has such a big luck factor, I wonder if that is a good model to work with.

The Detroit approach, however, is more doable. Create a team of guys willing to work hard, win the battle on the boards, share the ball and grind it out on D, while having enough firepower at 3 or 4 positions to score more points than your opponent. Strong defensive teams rarely have an off-night on D, while good offensive teams have plenty off-nights on O. It doesn't make you dependent on attracting stars to what isn't a prime location for FA's.

The only thing against this is that the current NBA rules seem to favor offensive teams a bit more than in the days of the Pistons championship, but still. In the post season, referees tend to swallow their whistles.

Would Dallas have won this last year without a dominating defensive presence in the post? Boston relies very much on their D, as did San Antonio. Defense still does win championships, and building a winning culture through defense is much more doable without getting acquiring that superstar.

I'm happy with coach Scott's emphasis on defense. I wonder what it will bring with this young group.
 
No, you pretty much need a superstar or two, or multiple All Stars.
 
Oh, okay.

He is right in the fact that Detroit did have multiple all-stars. People don't give that roster credit for how good it was top to bottom. But you're right in everything you said. We got to the finals on defense. It wasn't just Lebron because when Ferry brought in all these offense only stars and the defense started going down, we won the regular season but kept losing in the playoffs.

Looking back at how bad that team was. Ira Newble, what the hell is doing???? Why isn't Snow coaching for us in some capacity?
 
Let's just put aside the Thunder for a moment. They are nice, but as of yet unproven in the play-offs.

Most teams who have won in the past decades had a superstar on the team and most where from big markets. The exceptions being San Antonio (small market) and Detroit (star-less, team oriented and focus on D).

I wonder if Dirk would have been called a superstar if not for last season's title, but I guess that is for another thread.

In every plan, some things are needed: a good owner, a good coach, good management, continuity, some luck. I think the biggest question here is Grant. The owner is good, so is the coach, and continuity is something that requires time. You can't control luck.

People are easy to dismiss the Pistons' strategy because it only happened once. But how many teams really strike gold with a superstar capable of carrying a team to a championship? A superstar who stays healthy, stays with the team etc? It has such a big luck factor, I wonder if that is a good model to work with.

The Detroit approach, however, is more doable. Create a team of guys willing to work hard, win the battle on the boards, share the ball and grind it out on D, while having enough firepower at 3 or 4 positions to score more points than your opponent. Strong defensive teams rarely have an off-night on D, while good offensive teams have plenty off-nights on O. It doesn't make you dependent on attracting stars to what isn't a prime location for FA's.

The only thing against this is that the current NBA rules seem to favor offensive teams a bit more than in the days of the Pistons championship, but still. In the post season, referees tend to swallow their whistles.

Would Dallas have won this last year without a dominating defensive presence in the post? Boston relies very much on their D, as did San Antonio. Defense still does win championships, and building a winning culture through defense is much more doable without getting acquiring that superstar.

I'm happy with coach Scott's emphasis on defense. I wonder what it will bring with this young group.

It is interesting how often the "Detroit model" is discussed as an option. While clearly the Pistons did not have a hall of fame type star on it, many of the impact players in 2004 and the run in 2005 were formerly high lottery picks. Billups--3rd overall pick; Hamilton--7th overall pick; Rasheed Wallace--4th overall pick. They signed McDyess (2nd overall pick) as a free agent before the 2005 season. So the model still included multiple impact high lottery picks (even if another team selected them) to go with Prince and Ben Wallace. So even if you cite the Detroit model as the plan you want to get a bunch of guys that were considered among the top 5 guys in their draft year.
 
He is right in the fact that Detroit did have multiple all-stars.
Sorry but this is a bogus argument, IMO.

They became All-Stars after they won the championship. Only Ben Wallace was an all-Star at that season and/or the prior.
And Rasheed Wallace had been an All Star in 2000/2001.

Championship rings helps people become superstars/all stars.

And what the hell does it mean to be an All-Star? Mookie Blaylock, Danny Ainge, Cedric Ceballos, Antonio Davis, Jamaal Magloire. Hell, even Rik Smits was an All Star. :rolleyes:
 
He is right in the fact that Detroit did have multiple all-stars. People don't give that roster credit for how good it was top to bottom. But you're right in everything you said. We got to the finals on defense. It wasn't just Lebron because when Ferry brought in all these offense only stars and the defense started going down, we won the regular season but kept losing in the playoffs.

Looking back at how bad that team was. Ira Newble, what the hell is doing???? Why isn't Snow coaching for us in some capacity?

I'm tired of hearing all these side theories about alternate ways to win a championship without having to acquire a superstar or two or some shit...really getting old. Basing your team around defense is a fantastic idea, because that helps win in the playoffs. But you still need a superstar player, or multiple All Stars (like, as you said, the Pistons).

It really isn't even a discussion.
 
Sorry but this is a bogus argument, IMO.

They became All-Stars after they won the championship. Only Ben Wallace was an all-Star at that season and/or the prior.
And Rasheed Wallace had been an All Star in 2000/2001.

Championship rings helps people become superstars/all stars.

And what the hell does it mean to be an All-Star. Mookie Blaylock, Danny Ainge, Cedric Ceballos, Antonio Davis, Jamaal Magloire. Hell, even Rik Smits was an All Star. :rolleyes:

So we should model our championship team after the type of team that won a single championship instead of the numerous titles that involved superstars before and after that Pistons team?

I question this logic. In a star driven league, you think we can win with a roster of nobodies as long as they play defense. That is what I am hearing.
 
It is interesting how often the "Detroit model" is discussed as an option. While clearly the Pistons did not have a hall of fame type star on it, many of the impact players in 2004 and the run in 2005 were formerly high lottery picks. Billups--3rd overall pick; Hamilton--7th overall pick; Rasheed Wallace--4th overall pick. They signed McDyess (2nd overall pick) as a free agent before the 2005 season. So the model still included multiple impact high lottery picks (even if another team selected them) to go with Prince and Ben Wallace. So even if you cite the Detroit model as the plan you want to get a bunch of guys that were considered among the top 5 guys in their draft year.
Excellent point.
But these were high draft picks which either hadn't panned out (yet), or had some serious questionmarks surrounding them (Rasheed-attitude, McDyess-health).
And it is hard to find a team without multiple lottery picks on their roster, so I am not sure how much this really disproves the Detroit model.
 
Excellent point.
But these were high draft picks which either hadn't panned out (yet), or had some serious questionmarks surrounding them (Rasheed-attitude, McDyess-health).
And it is hard to find a team without multiple lottery picks on their roster, so I am not sure how much this really disproves the Detroit model.

Other than the fact that it has won a single championship.
 
Excellent point.
But these were high draft picks which either hadn't panned out (yet), or had some serious questionmarks surrounding them (Rasheed-attitude, McDyess-health).
And it is hard to find a team without multiple lottery picks on their roster, so I am not sure how much this really disproves the Detroit model.

There are people on this board that advocate doing whatever is necessary to get this franchise to be an 8th seed contender as quickly as possible. Others, of which I am one, advocate staying bad--real bad if possible--for 3 years to get the very high lottery guys before even trying to become a .500 team. Because once you get to .500 you are picking 14-20 and that will not get you the stars if you don't already have them on the roster.
 
A team without a superstar will probably never win a championship again. The Pistons were a great team, but they domianted one of the weakest eras in NBA history. I mean the 07 Cavs were the 2nd seed in the East in 06-07 with one of the worst supporting casts in the league.
 
He is right in the fact that Detroit did have multiple all-stars. People don't give that roster credit for how good it was top to bottom. But you're right in everything you said. We got to the finals on defense. It wasn't just Lebron because when Ferry brought in all these offense only stars and the defense started going down, we won the regular season but kept losing in the playoffs.

Looking back at how bad that team was. Ira Newble, what the hell is doing???? Why isn't Snow coaching for us in some capacity?


It was pretty close.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top