Team Building: Dominance vs Versatility

[Chronz]

Building a team from the ground up, would you rather have a group of players who can all do a variety of things or a unit in which each player has his own specialized skill.

For example, Team Versatility would have players who can all do alil of everything, pass, shoot, rebound, create etc...

Team Dominance however would have 1 ball handler/creator, 1 guy who works off screens to shoot, 1 ace defender/rebounder/postscorer.

Would you rather be unpredictable or conventional, a team with an identity or a team that can beat you in multiple ways.

[b@llhog24]

Versatility.

[Ebbs]

Dominance.

Shaq, Ray Allen and Steve Nash on team dominance.

Or

Chauncey Billups (prime) - Paul George - Paul Pierce - Pau Gasol - Marc Gasol versatility?

[Heediot]

I would want to build my team around one main guy. Whether it would be a Duncan, Shaq, Cp3 or LeBron, I want to facilitate my offense and defense around this player. That's why a dominating Big man is a premium because you can build around him on offense and defense. Guys like Jordan and Bron are rare where you can find a wing that can built around offense and defense.

After finding my foundation player, I would surround him with complementary players. Your foundation player should also be the one who ise able to take over when needed(big moments/games/clutch). You can have versatility like Denver and Indy, but if you don't have a guy that can take over you can only go so far. Detroit in their run had versatility and defense, but Billups could take over when it mattered, and Sheed could also hit big shots.

Surrround you star foundational player with good role players that can excel at one thing and if that player can bring more skills to the table, that's even better. Just my view.

[ink]

Building a team from the ground up, would you rather have a group of players who can all do a variety of things or a unit in which each player has his own specialized skill.

For example, Team Versatility would have players who can all do alil of everything, pass, shoot, rebound, create etc...

Team Dominance however would have 1 ball handler/creator, 1 guy who works off screens to shoot, 1 ace defender/rebounder/postscorer.

Would you rather be unpredictable or conventional, a team with an identity or a team that can beat you in multiple ways.

Good thread idea. Bryan Colangelo seems to believe in versatility. It hasn't helped the Raptors.

If you're going for versatility, you will have to have some players who can still dominate. Otherwise, every one of them will be vulnerable on any given night to having the crap kicked out of them by some of the dominant players in the NBA.

[JordansBulls]

Depends on how dominant the main guy is. I personally prefer balanced teams like the Celtics.

[Mikeleafs]

DOMINANT! You can cannot win in this league with a 7 footer who is a perimeter scorer and doesn't rebound ...

[Chronz]

Depends on how dominant the main guy is. I personally prefer balanced teams like the Celtics.

Good example, the Suns in their heyday are another IMO. They had guys with specific roles and they fulfilled them at an elite level.

Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.

[TheWatcher34]

I think your "team dominance" is more the idea of traditional basketball (like in the '80s/'90s): each player has his designated position that goes along a more or less strict role to fulfil, which should be in accordance to his skill set (and size, of course). The more different roles are manned on the team, the more balanced the team would be/play as a unit.
for example: Karl Malone"the mail man": delivery mid-range or with force to the hoop/ Stockton or young Kidd: distributor/ Ewing: post-up, score within 5 feet, rebound, block, and so on then you'd have a spot up shooter, maybe one or two crazy characters (Rodman) for the dirty work, ect...

..and versatility is, as the game has been changing, what modern basketball turns into: you have point forwards that can also play on the post (LeBron), you have Centers who can shoot threes (Love), you have centers who are soft and can't stand up to their size underneath the basket (Bargnani), you have Power forwards that take you off the dribble (Dirk) ...

Well, seems like both schemes worked in their respective era! you just need a good composition of different players that complement each other and chemistry to have success (championship).

[TheWatcher34]

[QUOTE=Chronz;24308432
Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.[/QUOTE]

the South Beach Boys Ballclub.

[Hawkeye15]

Good example, the Suns in their heyday are another IMO. They had guys with specific roles and they fulfilled them at an elite level.

Can you think of any examples for Team versatility, its harder to find/narrow down great teams built this way but I have a few in mind.

I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.

[ewing]

I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.

I think there are too many teams in the NBA to build that type of team now. I mean you can but its hard.


Mark Price's Cavs teams come to mind for me.

[Hawkeye15]

I think there are too many teams in the NBA to build that type of team now. I mean you can but its hard.


Mark Price's Cavs teams come to mind for me.

another good example. Ball handlers, passers, and guys who seemed to not play a position many times.

The problem is, historically, star driven teams are the only successful one (outside a few instances), so its pretty easy to pick the dominance one here for many people.

[J_M_B]

Another good example today would be Miami.

A "Positionless Era" as Spo puts it..

[Chronz]

I would imagine the early 2000's Kings teams fit this profile, outside a pretty damn good Webber.

I would suppose the coach matters too. A coach who can build an offense that is firing on all cylinders when the ball is moving quickly, multiple cutters, with players who can handle the ball at 3-4 positions, and guys with a high IQ.

I was thinking Kings too. Holzmans Knicks are another.

Another good example today would be Miami.

A "Positionless Era" as Spo puts it..

I was wondering about where they would fit