Morey and his argument of "Need 3 elite players to win a title"

Not going off what he said historically, since i really don't know, but more what they are trying to do and what he said when he didn't match Parsons...

DM thinks having another player of Chris Bosh's caliber is really really good. And he thinks that Chandler Parsons as your third best player... WHEN GETTING PAID $15 MILLION A YEAR isn't a good recipe to build a title contender.

Does anybody actually disagree with that??

yes, he's been angling for another home run type addition... I just don't think its as obvious as others do, that he's doing only that and refusing to build a team of near all-star level role players as well.

As much as people love to talk about Lance Stephenson, or heck Carlos Boozer... does anyone really think those are the types of players that you add to H&H and Ariza, Bev and Jones, and puts you in title contention as a great "team"??

Fact is the opportunity to land Bosh was DEFINITELY there, was DEFINITELY real, and was DEFINITELY close to happening. It didn't. DM can't make free agents sign with Houston.

This entire offseason boils down to 2 moves, really, only one of which is really really meaningful:

1. Making Chandler restricted. Complete backfire, no possible argument against it IN HINDSIGHT. At the time, there was at least logic to it, even if debate-able.

2. The Jeremy Lin trade. This isn't as bad, if you ask me. Yes, we gave up an asset for nothing (heck, had to include a late draft pick)... but meh. Whatever the numbers say, Jeremy's inconsistent play and confidence was hard to watch and I suspect hard to deal with as a coach and teammate. The biggest impact to me is the not trading draft picks in consecutive years rule.

Had DM not made Parsons a free agent, we'd still be upset Bosh didn't choose us, but again, what is Morey to do? He could then go out and get a couple free agents he might have wanted, even if it was Ariza again.

Considering there is a compelling argument made that the whole thing was a quid-pro-quo for bringing in Dwight (eg., Daryl, Dwight is signing with you, but my new client Chandler HAS TO BE MADE A FREE AGENT NEXT YEAR)... well that's a trade I'll take.

The NBA has less parity than any other sports league, and more than the 3 elite player argument, that championship list shows that and shows HOW HARD it is to win it all in the NBA. That's the big takeaway. And the obvious answer, which isn't debateable, imo, is better players on your team give you a better shot at winning. Big takeaway number two is you HAVE to be balanced. Offensively, and defensively. Even with 3 elite players...you still have to play as a team, with balance, and be great on both ends of the court. Big takeaway number 3 is coaching. No one knows why DM has ignored this, but it is what it is.

 

You mean like Kawhi, Parker $ Ginobli?

DD

 

Yeah, they had championship rosters obviously but there still needs to be a great coach who is able to challenge and get the best out their roster, along with controlling their egos. Right now the players egos seem to be out of control on the Rockets. superstars and great coaches kind of need each other. Those teams wouldn't have had a championship roster if it wasn't for their coach in my opinion. i don't think mediocre coaches are able to get the best potential out there roster and therefore are bound to lead to disappointment.

 

Some dead guy.

 

Blowing smoke to get him here? Like Cuban did to parsons because in each case trying to get the best you can get?

 

Larry Brown was a great xs and os coach that was considered very difficult to work with by both players and management until he stumbled into the Pistons job and won a title.

Doc Rivers was a terrible coach and worse, a quitter, when he went from Orlando to Boston. He was there to handle a tanking team and was going to get run out of town before the Big 3 came together and he won a title. He then quit on the Celtics and did nothing special with the Clippers last year.

Rick Carlise was considered a good coach that couldn't get you over the hump when he was run out of both Indiana and Detroit.

Erik Spoelstra was considered a Riley puppet that would get fired any minute so Riley could take over.

Phil Jackson is still debated by many whether he was even a good coach (laughable) or just fell into great rosters each time.

Rudy T is frequently joked about as being a "roll the ball out and let them play" coach. He had two title runs with Hakeem and success with a star studded lineup but didn't do much when he didn't have great players.

When you look at those teams you know what you really see? Great players and most often, one of the best 2 or 3 players in the entire league, on those title teams.

Great players make great coaches.

 

Who do you consider to be a great coach?

 

Kawhi was drafted #15, which might make you wonder, were the spurs so bad to get a 15? No they were not. Indiana drafted him and then traded him for a spurs asset, George hill.

 

Out of that list i mentioned, I only consider Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich to be elite coaches to tell the truth. I feel that a very good coach could win a championship once or twice, but it takes more consistency to win as many times as Phil and Pop. Great players make great coaches, but great coaches make great players also. It goes hand in hand and when u can win championships on a consistent basis as these coaches have, i think there is something special about the way they go about their job. I don't think any one is laughing at phil Jackson though. NOt a good x and o coach maybe, but who cares. He doesn't believe in it as much as most coaches do, and look where it has gotten him.

 

I think you could argue that the Lakers had a championship roster before Phil Jackson got there. You can't discredit coaching. It's important. Having a great coach is like having another star player on the court.

Management plays apart in it as well. Most championship teams have at least a couple of key players on the roster that they drafted.

 

I never said I don't consider any of those guys as less than great coaches, I'm telling you that general perception that they are great coaches came AFTER they won a title.

I would take most of the names on that list as my coach any day. But, if you did a poll on this board the day after Doc basically quit on Orlando and asked who here would want him, most would say no.

 

Larry Brown (who Pop learned from) is considered the best coach by many. I know I do. And Phil Jackson always had Tex Winters. The mature (older) Rockets fans know about him.

 

Yeah, i didn't know that LArry Brown learned from pop, but i am familiar with Tex and the triangle offense where Phil got his system from. I understand these are great basketball minds, as i believe Larry Brown is, but i think there is more to coaching than just knowing your Xs and Os. You got to be able to manage people and their egos also. But i do get your point.

 

this

/thread

close thread

 

47% of the teams that won championships in that period had 3 elite players. That means you should chase 3 elite players, if your a numbers guy. Morey is a numbers guy.

Many clutch fans feel that well placed players around Harden and Howard would do the trick. Also, many are seeing a pattern of Morey now going after defensive minded players. Very hard to put stats on defensive players, it usually takes watching them and appreciating their active hands and feet.

Dirk and Hakeem get the most credit of any players on those championship teams. Duncan 1999 team is a close second. I'm always amazed how mature Duncan was at 22/23. It's the one thing that made him better than Hakeem, maturity at a young age.

 

Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Hakeem was very mature, he just grew up playing more soccer. Now as penance go troll the spurs board for three weeks before you come back!

 

Hey Holmes, what about the 2006 Miami Heat?

 

One thing I just want to add.

What is the difference between being a championship contender and being a championship team? Yes, yes. I know...

The difference between contending and winning is, for a large part, LUCK. (Luck includes injuries, matchups, officiating, or sometimes as simple as a bounce of the ball.)

To me, the goal should be contending, not winning. You can be a contender for a whole decade without winning it all every year. If that is true, then we should not just look at the champions over the years but the contenders. There have been teams that could have won it all had they had better luck. We should not count these teams as losers. They should also be included as part of the sample size of "success" models.

 

Akeem wasn't mature, Hakeem was.
Olajuwon grew into the man he is today, similar to Malcolm X.

 

Wade, Shaq, JWil