Straight from Sam's Shoulder (SSS)

sinus007 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:......
The triangle is designed to have players that fit the roles in the triangle. Rondo, for example, wouldn't do well in the triangle with the team the Lakers have now because he's not a dead-eye shooter from the corner. Phil bitches about Kobe blowing up the triangle. Kobe's response was, basically, "the triangle wasn't getting it done, so I adjusted" and that pissed off Phil (especially since they lost. If they won Phil wouldn't say jack). Kobe's game didn't fit his system.
.....

Bobh,
Interesting observation.
Now, let me continue it and, please correct me if I'm wrong. So, this system (triangle) works and works until some teams adapt and find effective countermeasures; now this system doesn't work against those team and PJ has to adjust it or find a new one; but until he does the team has to adhere to the current system; but KB and maybe PG want to make adjustments themselves, be ahead of the master; therefore the conflict and poor performance.
Thanks,
AK

Rosalie,
RE: MD vs TA - agree 100%. Also, IMHO, MD is a better post-up player, especially if he's taller than the opponent.

sinus,

Yeah, for the most part. Sometimes it's just a key player, like Gasol, not having a good game. If the ball gets dumped down into Gasol in the post and he's having a bad game (or his defender is doing a good job one-on-one) so he's not drawing a doubleteam, then the triangle doesn't work as well. Phil wants his guys to execute the triangle well (can't blame him) but what happens next if that doesn't happen, for whatever reason? Then Phil just tells them to execute better, hit their shots (like they were intentionally missing).

Well, if our offense has to do with Ray coming off a weakside screen, getting a pass from Rondo and draining the shot but Ray's cold, then our offense will suffer too. The difference between the two coaches is that Doc will adjust and run Pierce off the screens instead of Ray and use Ray as a decoy, or have Rondo lob over the top to KG or Shaq, or let Baby go one-on-one, or...

bob

.

Good point, Bob and Sam, about PJ being a systems coach. One of his most annoying traits is when his team is getting obliterated, he refuses to call a timeout and re-group. I always like yelling at the TV when he finally does call the long needed TO to re-set.

Of course, he now has won more championships than Red, so I'll give him some credit on this. His belief, and rightfully so, is that these are grown men, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out of it. But it's always fun when most of the other teams have to call a TO because the Celtics are ripping them a new one.

Sam

Call it emotional if you will. Fine. But I played ball a long time and I know what the rules are. It began to get really bad during Jordan and went on to remain bad for the Shaq Kobe Phil deal in La la. It has leveled out some in the last few years but is still really uneven. I dont wish to enter in to a huge debate on this because it is something we just see different and thats ok. I just dont want to waste the time because I aint going to change your mind and I really dont want to anyway.

We have really different view on this. And always will (unless some shit really changes.) I feel strongly that it's time for Stern to go (though he has done a fine job and was the right man at the right time) and I feel REALLY STRONGLY that it's PAST time for some new blood and I mean totally new to infuse the actual refs that call the games. Joey Crawford, Danny Crawford all the old guard guys need to go. Joey Crawford threw Duncan out of a game for smiling. He should not be reffing games in the nba. He is RUN by his emotions and an unobserved unchecked ego.

Anyway. Take her easy.


Jeb

I've been biting my tongue regarding criticism of Phil here and on other threads. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, times ten for Celtic fans, but I think it's too easy to fall into a trap of believing the stereotypes about him and selling the guy short as a coach.

A couple of points regarding the time outs:

-- When the other team goes on a run, Phil's belief is that his team becomes stronger if they can find a way to reverse the momentum on their own instead of relying on a time out. If the team knows that the coach won't call a time out, then they know it's up to them to turn it around. When they find it within themselves to do that for a 14-2 run, then they learn the composure to do it for an 8-2 run, before the run even gets to "dear Lord, please call a time out" status.

-- He does this during the regular season, not the playoffs. He takes the long view on the season and isn't going to lose any sleep if he loses a game or two by letting his team play on when it struggles since he believes it will make his team stronger in the playoffs. But come playoff time, he's much more apt to call time outs to stop momentum by the other team.

Regarding my understanding of the triangle offense:

-- In it's ideal form, there are no "roles," and all players could play all positions in the offense. In reality, you tailor what each player does to their strengths, so that Fisher is a cutter and perimeter player, not a post player, and Bynum is a post player, not a perimeter player. But you can have Kobe in the post because that's now one of his strengths, and you can have Pau outside (not at the 3-pt line, but outside) because he shoots well up to 20 feet.

-- You don't make adjustments to the triangle the same way you do to most offenses because the triangle is designed to always have the offense adjust according to what the defense does. Of course there are still adjustments -- putting emphasis on one aspect of it versus another, telling a player to choose option 3c to exploit an advantage, that kind of thing. But it's important to understand that a central aspect of the offense (and the reason it's so difficult for many players to learn) is that it is inherently designed to adjust to what the defense does.

-- They don't run it all the time. I don't know what percentage of the time they run it -- 50%? 60%? They'll run isolations, usually for Kobe, or screen/rolls (which aren't a part of the triangle), or whatever they think they can take advantage of. But the fluid ball movement and cutting is the triangle offense.

Since I've stepped into this snake pit, I may as well jump in with both feet and give you my take on one of the stereotypes about Phil -- he only wins because he has great players. And other coaches win without them? I don't think so. But there have been lots of teams with great players that underperformed and didn't win or didn't even come close to winning a title. Michael Jordan didn't win a title until Phil became the coach. Shaq and Kobe didn't win a title until Phil became the coach. He's won 11 championships in the past 20 years. You can dislike him, you can hate him personally, you can say he's a jerk, but cannot tell me the man can't coach.

Outside

Outside

I think most of the fellas and specially on this thread said that Phil was inflexible and that is different than saying he is a bad coach. I think he IS inflexible too. If his thoughts and system do not work you can jump on the guy and just SWAMP him like we did in 08 and like the Pistons did .

I think that some guys when they have success get very very stuck in their ways and I think Phil has had wild success. It is in my opinion WAAYYYY harder to handle success with grace and smarts than it is to handle failure. Success can just flat ruin you inside. Surrounded by yes men and toadies your heart can become poison. I have seen it working in the film business over and over.

So it has gone with Phil. I dont think coaching brings him much joy I think t feeds his hungry giant essentially unobserved ego. And i dont think his shctick can survive too many direct shots to the head.

To say that Jordan never won it without Phil is true but it is equally true to sy that the pistons and celtics were aging and it was only a matter of time. Jordan. Then he steps into another fully formed peaking situation in la. The dude has had a well timed life.

He is a great coach. Is he flexible? I dont think he is but this season will REVEAL both his strengths and weaknesses because Kobe is going to fight him and father time hammer and tongs and father time is one rough ol boy.

Best to you

Jeb

What is the relatively speaking weakest team that has ever won a title through the years?

As in what team managed to make the most out of its (limited) capacity and take it all the way?

Swede, with weak being a relative term and me having seen champions crowned from 1970 to the present my opinion (and we all know the saying about opinions) is the 1975 Golden St. Warriors. They were a very good team who beat the best record in the league Bullets in a lopsided finals but I think that in comparison to the other titlists that Ive seen they probably did more with less than any other championship team. They were basically Rick Barry, Keith (Jamal) Wilkes and some pretty decent role players who are pretty much footnotes in nba history i.e. Phil Smith , Charlie Johnson, Butch Beard, Charles Dudley, George Johnson & Clifford Ray (a great 2 headed defensive center tandem) Bill Bridges, Derek Dickey and Jeff Mullins. Again, weak is a relative term and in know way implies bad or undeserving.

Outside wrote:I've been biting my tongue regarding criticism of Phil here and on other threads. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, times ten for Celtic fans, but I think it's too easy to fall into a trap of believing the stereotypes about him and selling the guy short as a coach.

A couple of points regarding the time outs:

-- When the other team goes on a run, Phil's belief is that his team becomes stronger if they can find a way to reverse the momentum on their own instead of relying on a time out. If the team knows that the coach won't call a time out, then they know it's up to them to turn it around. When they find it within themselves to do that for a 14-2 run, then they learn the composure to do it for an 8-2 run, before the run even gets to "dear Lord, please call a time out" status.

-- He does this during the regular season, not the playoffs. He takes the long view on the season and isn't going to lose any sleep if he loses a game or two by letting his team play on when it struggles since he believes it will make his team stronger in the playoffs. But come playoff time, he's much more apt to call time outs to stop momentum by the other team.

Regarding my understanding of the triangle offense:

-- In it's ideal form, there are no "roles," and all players could play all positions in the offense. In reality, you tailor what each player does to their strengths, so that Fisher is a cutter and perimeter player, not a post player, and Bynum is a post player, not a perimeter player. But you can have Kobe in the post because that's now one of his strengths, and you can have Pau outside (not at the 3-pt line, but outside) because he shoots well up to 20 feet.

-- You don't make adjustments to the triangle the same way you do to most offenses because the triangle is designed to always have the offense adjust according to what the defense does. Of course there are still adjustments -- putting emphasis on one aspect of it versus another, telling a player to choose option 3c to exploit an advantage, that kind of thing. But it's important to understand that a central aspect of the offense (and the reason it's so difficult for many players to learn) is that it is inherently designed to adjust to what the defense does.

-- They don't run it all the time. I don't know what percentage of the time they run it -- 50%? 60%? They'll run isolations, usually for Kobe, or screen/rolls (which aren't a part of the triangle), or whatever they think they can take advantage of. But the fluid ball movement and cutting is the triangle offense.

Since I've stepped into this snake pit, I may as well jump in with both feet and give you my take on one of the stereotypes about Phil -- he only wins because he has great players. And other coaches win without them? I don't think so. But there have been lots of teams with great players that underperformed and didn't win or didn't even come close to winning a title. Michael Jordan didn't win a title until Phil became the coach. Shaq and Kobe didn't win a title until Phil became the coach. He's won 11 championships in the past 20 years. You can dislike him, you can hate him personally, you can say he's a jerk, but cannot tell me the man can't coach.

Outside

outside,

Usually I have to date someone for a while before they call me "a snake", but if the pit fits...:-)

I must disagree with you on your comment about "in its ideal form there are no roles in the triangle". On the contrary, in its ideal form it is ALL roles. As you correctly pointed out you wouldn't put Fisher in the post because he's not a post player. The key to the post player is that he must command a doubleteam and he must be a complete enough player to be able to pass out of it to one of the other corners of the triangle. Ok, so that's a role and any player who cannot do that cannot play that role. Now that Kobe has become a better post up player, he NOW can play that role and you could move Gasol on top. You could not, however, put Bynum on top because he cannot fill the role, which you highlighted when you said that Gasol COULD move on top, and hit the outside shot. Bynum cannot play that role.

As far as "letting his players struggle to become stronger", Phil's career long modus operandi is to play his starters heavy minutes. He has usually kept his bench fairly short except for when he had no choice (like with the 3-headed monster in Chicago). Is that because he wants to make them stronger, or because he hates losing? I'm not sure it makes a difference since making them stronger is good and so is hating to lose. God knows Red and Russ hated it like the Devil hates Holy Water. It seems to me, though, with the awesome talent he had on that Chicago team I don't think he really was worried about them needing to get stronger. Any weak sister on that team would get pumped up by MJ like a balloon getting attached to a compressed air tank. The six years the Bulls won the Championship they averaged 65 wins a year. There's not a lot of struggling there. In the 1995-96 season, the one where they won 72 games, Michael Jordan played 37.7mpg. He averaged 38.3 for his career. I don't see much correlation between struggling and playing longer minutes there (Pippen played 36.7mpg that year with a 34.9mpg career average, so it wasn't just MJ). So, if I had to come down on one side of the fence or the other, I'd say it's more about Phil not liking to lose, for any reason, and that includes games.

For the record, I don't think Phil Jackson is a bad coach. I think his style is unorthodox, to say the least, from using the triangle to coaching through the press. His style, however, might be getting old. I was shocked, to be honest, when Kobe said "that's just Phil being Phil. He coaches through the press and the new guys shouldn't listen to it". It's amazing to hear the team leader and captain say, on camera, "pay no attention to the coach".

In his final days, there were rumblings that the players joining the Warriors didn't want to listen to Don Nelson anymore. His old school style didn't jive with the the new guys and the old-timers had had enough. Maybe that's Phil Jackson now, maybe his players are just tired of hearing his voice? He's had public spats with Bynum and Artest and now he's sniping at Kobe and Pau. Phil has said, again, this is his last season. That would make him one season smarter than Nelson, who didn't take the hint and had to be ushered out by the new management.

bob

.

willjr wrote:Swede, with weak being a relative term and me having seen champions crowned from 1970 to the present my opinion (and we all know the saying about opinions) is the 1975 Golden St. Warriors. They were a very good team who beat the best record in the league Bullets in a lopsided finals but I think that in comparison to the other titlists that Ive seen they probably did more with less than any other championship team. They were basically Rick Barry, Keith (Jamal) Wilkes and some pretty decent role players who are pretty much footnotes in nba history i.e. Phil Smith , Charlie Johnson, Butch Beard, Charles Dudley, George Johnson & Clifford Ray (a great 2 headed defensive center tandem) Bill Bridges, Derek Dickey and Jeff Mullins. Again, weak is a relative term and in know way implies bad or undeserving.

I was not really meaning weak in a bad way but kind of like in the way you showed, a team that had limited pool of talent to draw from and where the team for sure was stronger than the individual parts.

I was mostly wondering since people were talking about Phil Jackson only being able to win with good teams (which he still does pretty darn well).

swedeinestonia wrote:What is the relatively speaking weakest team that has ever won a title through the years?

As in what team managed to make the most out of its (limited) capacity and take it all the way?

Swede

The Golden State team is a good one perhaps the best one that fits your question but IMHO another team to be considered as a surprise to win it all would be the 69 Celts. Not too many teams or people outside of that team and it's diehard fans gave them much of a chance. Key players were getting old with Russ and Sam Jones both 35. Perhaps winning the year before should have given people a hint but still they finished 4th in the east for the final playoff spot. Hondo was in his prime but really the rest were not big stars at all. Nelson Howell Bryant Siggy Sanders were all important and key players that understood what their role on the team was.

And of course if ESPN exsisted in 69 the baloons would have probably had their ESPN LOGO on um too.

beat

what about the bullets team with unseld that won it? were they not on the short side and a little thin bench wise?

jeb

Bullets oldest player was EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Elvin Hayes (remember the PA announcer when he scored. )

He was 32 and close to his prime Unseld was short BUT a pit bull of a center. He was 31 that season.
Record wise they only won 44 games and finished second in the Central.

beat

seems like they really struggled with injuries and picked up a couple of key guys at the right time...lot like us in 08 with pj...but they were not exactly stacked and they brassed it out to win.

Jeb,

I don't know Phil other than what anyone sees or reads, so I don't know about success going to his head. I don't doubt he has a sizable ego -- pretty much everyone in this business does. He actually comes across to me as a fairly grounded individual who will be content to live away from the limelight at his ranch in Montana.

As for him being inflexible, I don't see that either. He justifiably has great faith in his system, so of course he's going to stick with it, even if it's not 100% effective. I don't think inflexibility on his part or a poor system were the reasons the Lakers lost in 2004 or 2008. In 2008, they met a superior opponent that was tougher and more determined. Jerry Sloan sticks with his system year after year, hasn't won a title, yet I respect him as much as any coach in the game today. Is he inflexible?

With Phil, does the perception of inflexibility originate from his coaching style, which is "hands on" in practice (which the public generally doesn't see) and "hands off" in games? Like the time-out issue -- why doesn't he act like other coaches and call time out, draw up a play, make adjustments, get the team back on track? Because his philosophy is to teach in practice and let players play during games rather than calling time outs when most other coaches do. When he does call time out, I see him tell the team what they need to do more of, diagram plays, and make adjustments. Maybe I'm missing the reason why you consider him inflexible.

Watch what he does do during time outs, especially in the playoffs -- he steps out onto the court, away from the players, to meet with his coaching staff. They talk it over and decide what they want to do. Then they meet with the players. It's different from what most other coaches do (I'm not aware of anyone else who does it, but he probably borrowed the idea from someone), and it makes sense to me. Pretty much everything about the guy is different from a typical NBA coach -- the triangle, his coaching style, his personality.

I do agree heartily with one thing you said -- this season will reveal both his strengths and weaknesses. It will be interesting to watch it play out.

Best backatcha

Outside

beat wrote:

swedeinestonia wrote:What is the relatively speaking weakest team that has ever won a title through the years?

As in what team managed to make the most out of its (limited) capacity and take it all the way?

Swede

The Golden State team is a good one perhaps the best one that fits your question but IMHO another team to be considered as a surprise to win it all would be the 69 Celts. Not too many teams or people outside of that team and it's diehard fans gave them much of a chance. Key players were getting old with Russ and Sam Jones both 35. Perhaps winning the year before should have given people a hint but still they finished 4th in the east for the final playoff spot. Hondo was in his prime but really the rest were not big stars at all. Nelson Howell Bryant Siggy Sanders were all important and key players that understood what their role on the team was.

And of course if ESPN exsisted in 69 the baloons would have probably had their ESPN LOGO on um too.

beat

You guys are killin' me, calling out my Warriors as a prime example of a weak roster to win a title. The thing is... sigh... you're right. What a glorious title it was There was no WAY they could beat those Bullets, and they SWEPT 'em. Glorious, I tell ya.

I could say that Jeff Mullins was one of the all-time great Warriors, Phil Smith was a darn good guard, Bill Bridges and Butch Beard were solid pros, and they were 59-23 the next season. But the fact is Wilkes and Smith were rookies, Mullins and Bridges were at the end of the careers, they went 48-34 that title year, and they are one of the best examples of a star surrounded by role players overachieving to win a title that you'll ever see.

By the way, I cannot for one second consider the '69 Celtics as having a weak roster. There was so much institutional winning knowledge with that group that they are totally disqualified from any such discussion. My calculator might break figuring out how many prior titles that roster had.

Outside

Outside, on my post I meant to preface my opinion with apologies to you . That Warrior team also was a great example of guys knowing their strengths and weaknesses and their roles. They also knew how to ride/lean on/placate the team superstar better than any other team in history including the Jordan Bulls.

Hey Bob,

Just a thing or two. You know how I am about these things.

bobheckler wrote:I must disagree with you on your comment about "in its ideal form there are no roles in the triangle".

My fault. I did a bad job explaining myself here. What I meant is that, ideally, the triangle would be run by five guys 6-7 to 6-9, each of whom could fill any position within the offense at any time. (I should've said position, not role.)

bobheckler wrote:As far as "letting his players struggle to become stronger", Phil's career long modus operandi is to play his starters heavy minutes. He has usually kept his bench fairly short except for when he had no choice (like with the 3-headed monster in Chicago). Is that because he wants to make them stronger, or because he hates losing? I'm not sure it makes a difference since making them stronger is good and so is hating to lose. God knows Red and Russ hated it like the Devil hates Holy Water. It seems to me, though, with the awesome talent he had on that Chicago team I don't think he really was worried about them needing to get stronger. Any weak sister on that team would get pumped up by MJ like a balloon getting attached to a compressed air tank. The six years the Bulls won the Championship they averaged 65 wins a year. There's not a lot of struggling there. In the 1995-96 season, the one where they won 72 games, Michael Jordan played 37.7mpg. He averaged 38.3 for his career. I don't see much correlation between struggling and playing longer minutes there (Pippen played 36.7mpg that year with a 34.9mpg career average, so it wasn't just MJ). So, if I had to come down on one side of the fence or the other, I'd say it's more about Phil not liking to lose, for any reason, and that includes games.

Well, shoot, there I go again. I shouldn't have said "struggle," because it's about the players knowing they have to stem the tide themselves rather than relying on a time out or a coaching move. Anyone who's been on Phil's team for more than a season has experienced this, so it's not like they have to "struggle" and figure it out. And obviously he's had some excellent teams that generally put the hurt on the opponent rather than the other way around. But I think you pointed out something key -- "Any weak sister on that team would get pumped up by MJ like a balloon getting attached to a compressed air tank." It's about the players relying on themselves during games, and it's about the leaders of the team taking greater responsibility for leadership and the coach taking somewhat less responsibility, by design.

bobheckler wrote:For the record, I don't think Phil Jackson is a bad coach. I think his style is unorthodox, to say the least, from using the triangle to coaching through the press. His style, however, might be getting old. I was shocked, to be honest, when Kobe said "that's just Phil being Phil. He coaches through the press and the new guys shouldn't listen to it". It's amazing to hear the team leader and captain say, on camera, "pay no attention to the coach".

Well, I don't think he's saying, "pay no attention to the coach;" I think he's saying, "don't let it bother you, it's the way Phil is." I also think he's saying, "I'm the leader of the team, listen to me, it's no big deal." I think Phil and Kobe generally get along pretty well. They've been together long enough that it's like a marriage.

Sorry about me leading you astray with my poor choice of wording. But what's a snake pit without a little snake poop.

Outside

willjr wrote:Outside, on my post I meant to preface my opinion with apologies to you . That Warrior team also was a great example of guys knowing their strengths and weaknesses and their roles. They also knew how to ride/lean on/placate the team superstar better than any other team in history minus the Jordan Bulls.

Will,

Thanks. I actually think they're a better example than the Jordan Bulls of a team with role players because 1) they only had one star, not two. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen. And 2) they had that magnificently effective two-headed center of Clifford Ray and George Johnson, which was like two role players splitting one role.

My biggest regret about that title is that Nate Thurmond wasn't part of it. He was traded to Chicago (for Clifford Ray) before the season.

Outside

P.S. Sam, sorry about hijacking your thread. But it's your fault for instigating such interesting topics and hosting such a knowledgeable, congenial group.

Steve,

Thanks for catching me on the typo. I was rushing out when I wrote that title (after composing the post). I actually play Lloyd Price all the time, including 45s that I still have. I also really like, "Where Were You on My Wedding Day?"

Beat,

Russell - HOF and arguably the best player of all-time
Sam - HOF and arguably the greatest clutch shooter of all-time
Havlicek - HOF; arguably the most well-rounded, best-conditioned player ever
Howell - HOF; one of the fine rebounders and "garbage scorers" of all-time
Sanders - In the rafters and a worthy candidate for the HOF
Nelson - In the rafters and one of the shrewdest players of all-time
Bryant - capable role player who actually won Game 7 for them
Siggy - Should be in the rafters;very effective two-way player

Weak? Weak? Weak? I think not!

Injured? Yes. Aging? Yes. Underdogs? Yes. Paced themselves during the season? Yes.

But, the reason they won the championship (winning 4of 5 after being down 0-2 out of the chute) was because they were inherently the antithesis of weak. They were extremely strong.

Sam

Outside

In my book you cant know what a man is made of at a poker table until you see him cycle through some mediocre and even terrible hands. If a guy just keeps throwing down boats and straight flushes you know what he reads like when he is winning but you dont know what kind of long haul player he is until he gets dealt a few bad cards.

Phil has been dealt almost exclusively high betting hands. I would love to see him coach the Clippers. I would love to see him be involved in something from the ground up. Never going to happen.

I think all this shit playing out in the media between he and Kobe (and with Kobe on the hardwood) shows that they are BOTH inflexible and for real I dont see it getting better unless Kobe breaks and begins to design his game around his diminished skills and ball movement and using himself for a decoy insead of trying to be the man and hero all the time. If he keeps thinking he is 27 it is going to be a long season for the Lakers and Phil is going to throw down his boat yet another very good betting hand only to find two or three other teams are sitting on four of a kind.

By the way, I cannot for one second consider the '69 Celtics as having a weak roster. There was so much institutional winning knowledge with that group that they are totally disqualified from any such discussion. My calculator might break figuring out how many prior titles that roster had.

Outside.


SAM and OUTSIDE

Please read my post again. I Never mentioned the word weak at all I carefully chose not too.

Just the idea that they certailnly were NOT the favorites, were a little long in the tooth and beat up. I know the roster had players that knew how to win and had rings galore but the fact is they were far from the favorites going into the playoffs.

beat

Sorry, Beat. I was referring to Swede's original question, in which he alluded to the "weakest" team and then refined it to refer to "drawing from a limited pool of talent."

Sam

I dont think a team like that can be considered limited in talent

Of course time takes its toll and you lose a step but a lot of the time what changes more is really that urge to win and fight.

My original idea was to show teams that managed to do a lot with a little for whatever reason, maybe because of a good coach.

Why I wanted to limit it to championship teams is because then you cant really argue about them doing a lot with very little. Being a .500 might be a great coaching achievement with some teams but winning it all, then there is just no discussion anymore

Sam

No problem I know it was an iffy selection at best but probably the least likely Celtic team to go on to win a championship.

The role of underdog is not a bad one to have most of the time. Even Wally Cox thinks so! So....." there is no need to fear!"

(now there is a trivia answer to the underdog question)

beat

swedeinestonia wrote:I dont think a team like that can be considered limited in talent

Of course time takes its toll and you lose a step but a lot of the time what changes more is really that urge to win and fight.

My original idea was to show teams that managed to do a lot with a little for whatever reason, maybe because of a good coach.

Why I wanted to limit it to championship teams is because then you cant really argue about them doing a lot with very little. Being a .500 might be a great coaching achievement with some teams but winning it all, then there is just no discussion anymore

Tough comming up with a real good example in the NBA as there are so many good players but going down to the college ranks there are a couple that stand out to me. That NCState team with Charles jamming in an airball to win it and Valvano running around looking to hug someone. And also the Vilanova team that beat Georgetown and in effect made the NCAA bring a shot clock to the college game! Rollie Massimino's team just shot lights (22-28 from the field), out that game and a couple players had career games and never did a lot on the court after. Pickney did go on to have a good NBA career and was involved in the trade that sent Ainge to the Suns for him and Joe Kline (I think) 5 other players from this team were also drafted by the NBA.


Championship Box Score
Villanova FG-A FT- Pts
Harold Pressley 4-6 3-4 11
Dwayne McClain 5-7 7-8 17
Ed Pinckney 5-7 6-7 16
Dwight Wilbur 0-0 0-0 0
Gary McLain 3-3 2-2 8
Harold Jensen 5-5 4-5 14
Mark Plansky 0-0 0-1 0
Chuck Everson 0-0 0-0 0
Team 3
Totals 22-28 22-27 66
Georgetown FG-A FT-A Pts
Totals 29-53 6-8 64



beat

beat