you need a generational player to win a chip, helps a lot though.
also irrelevant if you saw the play point remains in the hierarchy of basketball positional value.
nothing's changed its just in most cases the pg is too small to be effective as the best player on the team
other than IT which was 20+ years ago, pretty much every championship team's clearcut best player has been big enough to be able to dominate a game
building around a 6ft player never works
so they were chauncy's pistons now becaus that supports your argument?
he won the finals mvp but just like your iverson argument, that team was carried by its defense
have you not watched basketball for the past 8 years?
so the 60s celtics would dominate now like they did back in the 60s?
still 10 guys 2 nets and a round ball right?
the game changes, adapt or get left behind
in this very thread you said that iverson only made the finals because of team defense
now you are using billups as an example for a PG leading a team to a title when he got "carred" by his team's all time great defense more so than iverson did?
discredit iverson's accomplishments because you dont like the way he plays so you hype up the 6ers defense, but then you say that billups is the best player on the pistons and lead them to a title ignoring their all time great defense because that wouldnt support your argument.
yeah no point arguing with people like you
kobe had 25.2 5.5 and 5.5 playing 80 games
shaq had 27.2 10.7 and 3 but only playing 67 games
hard to attribute the lakers success to just shaq
edit: wrong year
kobe had 28.5 5.9 and 5 in 68 games
shaq had 28.7 12.7 and 3.7 in 74 games
the pg isnt useless, its just far from one of the most important positions needed to win a championship. the 3 most dominant teams since the jordan era started guys like derick fisher, steve kerr and mario chalmers at PG. thats not even top 10 PG in the league at the time worthy.
you keep making up bs excuses like only one team wins a year, so its not actually that bad that a team with a top PG hasnt led a team to a title. well the bottom line is it doesnt happen, while a player that doesnt play the PG position leads his team to a championship literally every year in recent memory.
i get how you have some weird love fest with chris paul and how he plays basketball the "right" way and makes his teammates better. his team success is about the same as guys like melo and tmac.
john stockton is a top 3 all time PG, he had a top 3 all time PF on his team but his team lost to a team without a half decent PG in the finals twice because a guy like jordan who is bigger than a PG can dominate a game way more than any PG out side of 6'9 magic can.
steve nash and jason kidd are the two best pgs of this era, they didnt win anything. kidd only won a ring after he got on a team where 7 ft dirk was by far the best player
the two guys with the most rings since the 80s kobe and jordan have both been considered ball hogs but that didnt keep them from winning
you can sit there and keep making up more excuses but the fact is when you look at past champions, there is nothing that leads me to believe that an elite pg is very important for winning a championship.
so keep telling yourself that the way chris paul plays basketball results in more wins than iverson or melo and keep watching him come up short year after year then keep blaming his teammates or his coach or his teams lack of defense.
you say centers are more important than any other position when it comes to winning championships right now when there hasnt been a dominant center on a championship team since 06. but LOOK! there were lots of great centers in the 90s and 80s!!!
at even trying to explain why the 80s or 90s can tell us more about what it takes to win a championship in 2014 than what has happened in the past 5-10 years
must have been ron artest that carried kobe to that championship then
yeah of course all positions are important but its pretty dumb to say a C and PG are the most important positions when it comes to building a championship team when a majority of title winners in the past 20 years had average to below average PGs and Cs and literally every championship team had an elite wing player (SG/SF)
you could argue that the pistons won with billups who was far from an elite pg as their best player but the fact that its an outlier only further emphasizes the fact that an elite PG is not needed to win a championship let alone on of the most important pieces.
Kobe never made anybody better. LBJ had eric snow out there looking awesome. Had Anthony Parker styling..... had bums actually playing good in Cleveland
i agree that wings are the most replaceable, but im talking about having the biggest impact on an nba game in 2014
of course if you have a guy like shaq you build around him and get championships out of it but the common denominator between all recent championship teams have been non Cs or PGs
my ranking would be sf/sg>sf>c>>pg
in the 90s championship teams were built around the games best wing players (jordan) and post players (duncan, hakeem)
in the 00s championship teams were built around the games best wing players (kobe, wade) and post players (shaq, duncan)
in the 10s championship teams were built around the games best wing players (lebron) and post players (dirk)
with KD coming around the corner the trend doesnt seem to be stopping soon.
if i could have a top tier PG on my team of course i would take him but i really dont see how a top PG is more important to have when building a championship team than a player from any of the other positions.
if we get the 1st pick this year i would hope we get embiid because its rare to get a good C in the league today and its not too hard to get a top tier wing player, but thats more due to scarcity rather than how vital a C is to winning a championship