Great players you didn't and don't have to build teams around

[elementally morale]

Steph. He is elite with or without the ball. He fits with an off ball player like Klay but can also play with a ball dominant player because his off ball game is so good.

Yes, I also had him in the thread opener. I tend to think Curry belongs... but I need to see him get back to the Finals or at least 2-3 WCFs witn a different set of players first. But I think he has a good case. So people I think have a good case are:

Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan


Kawhi (?)
Curry (?)
Luka (?)

Should we add Dirk? I don't know. I'm not sold on him. Yes, he won that one time... and yes, ha could work with anyone... but was he successful enough save for that one year he won? I think he wasn't.

[MaxPlayer]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous, even 3 of the players you mentioned had some of the most consistently talented rosters and management around them for nearly their entire careers. I don't care who you are, every player needs a talented roster around them in order to win championships. You have the extremely rare examples where it does occur ('94 Hakeem, '03 Duncan, 2011 Dirk) but outside of one year aberrations, to win multiple championships, no player can accomplish that without a legitimate squad around them

I think there's SOMETHING to it. Like, take one end of the spectrum you have a guy like AI where you HAVE to have a big guard next to him to defend SGs, and you HAVE to have a great offensive rebounder or 2 to grab his misses and you CAN'T have another high-usage guy, etc.

There are a couple of obvious problems with this:

1.) It can be hard to fill out a roster with the particular archetypes of players that you need.

2.) If the star player you're building around gets hurt or leaves, the remaining pieces may not comprise a functional team.

Different sport, but I feel like this is a big part of a reason why a guy like Tim Tebow never really got another shot as a QB. Maybe he could have been effective... if a franchise committed to building its entire offense around his unique skillset. But if he got hurt, then you'd be totally screwed because no one else could do what he did, and you'd be left with a bunch unoptimized parts. No one was willing to take such a risky approach.

[SouBeachTalents]

Talented players, yes. Sure. You need good teammates. But Magic could work with any set of teammates, not specialists. On the other hand, a guy like Shaq needed a certain type of teammate. So there is a difference.

Duncan could work with David Robinson. And also Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. That's different than most stars ,who need a certain type of talent around them in order to be successful.

So you basically mean players you wouldn't need a specific blueprint to build around?

Off the top of my head, obviously assuming they have a championship caliber squad

Magic
Curry
Jordan
Bird
Kawhi
Dirk
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem

[elementally morale]

Lakers currently rank 27th in the league in 3 point percentage yet have the best record in the league and LeBron is having a MVP level season.

So this idea that LeBron NEEDS shooters to succeed is completely false

It may be false but there is a guy with the name Davis on the back of his jersey. Plus it is one year and 15 games... not a big enough sample. LeBron's career is a bigger sample... and it looks he needed all the help in the world and specialist around him.

[elementally morale]

You didn't have to build around MJ. You give him a player that is average and he molds them into the teammate they need to be by his own doing and own personal time. If MJ thought a better big man was needed, he would have pulled Cartwright to his side and made Bill come to his house every day to practice and workout before actual practice like he did with Pippen. MJ however was so GOAT that a team didn't need to be built around him so the bulls didn't need a dominant big man to win, unlike all the other teams during his era.

I saw MJ's whole career. I wasn't a fan. I didn't like him at all. I was a Laker fan. I do think, however, that MJ is the best player I've ever seen so far. It was a bad decision on my part to hate on him... I missed some great entertainment.

Still... I remember his career differently. I think he needed a set of good defenders. I'm not sure how much he needed the triangle offense... but all his success came with Tex Winter and Phil Jackson. (Same with Kobe, btw.)

So you guys may add MJ if you really feel that way... I don't.

[Trollsmasher]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]It is easier to insert Kawhi Leonard on a good team and win a chip than it is to have LeBron and custom hand pick everyone around him for his particular needs

The term that used to be used on RealGM about this was

[elementally morale]

lebron has never been inserted into a good team

all the teams he has ever entered were hot garbage

Like Miami with Wade and Bosh?

LeBron is not a good example here. He is a good example for a lot of things but not a good example in this thread.

[warriorfan]

lebron has never been inserted into a good team

all the teams he has ever entered were hot garbage

Even if that statement was true(which it is not). We have seen well enough of his playstyle to see he needs a particular set of skills around him. He needs shooters, especially stretch Bigs. No post occupying big men. No one to split the time of possession with him like a true point guard. You need to customize a team around him and there seems to be never enough help for him. He doesn

[elementally morale]

So you basically mean players you wouldn't need a specific blueprint to build around?

Off the top of my head, obviously assuming they have a championship caliber squad

Magic
Curry
Jordan
Bird
Kawhi
Dirk
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem

The bolded I don't agree with. Shaq needed shooters and a great wing. Dirk was very good but not great. He had a great run in one year and I'm happ for him. Very nice guy all around. I just don't think he was successful enough throughout his career with any set of players. He could work with any set... yes. But not successful enough.

Curry and Kawhi I don't know yet. Need 2 more years to determine. With MJ... I'm on the fence. He may be a good example after all. I never liked him... it may cloud my judgement.

[egokiller]

I saw MJ's whole career. I wasn't a fan. I didn't like him at all. I was a Laker fan. I do think, however, that MJ is the best player I've ever seen so far. It was a bad decision on my part to hate on him... I missed some great entertainment.

Still... I remember his career differently. I think he needed a set of good defenders. I'm not sure how much he needed the triangle offense... but all his success came with Tex Winter and Phil Jackson. (Same with Kobe, btw.)

So you guys may add MJ if you really feel that way... I don't.

Why would a guy like MJ who actually won DPOY need more defenders on his team than a guy who never won DPOY? How does that logic work? If anything, it proves that MJ needed a lesser set of good defenders than any of the guys you mentioned that never won DPOY because his own defense made up for it.

The fact that MJ was able to win with the triangle offense just proves how GOAT he was. The opposition KNEW what offense he was going to run and still couldn't stop it.

[elementally morale]

On another note per LeBron James.

He had the talent to be a good example here. The way he played in his fisrt 2-3 years and the way he plays this very year... those are great examples. So with him... I think he made a bad decision becoming a scorer. He should and could have played the game the Magic-way. LeBron had Magic-like talent. He could've been a lot more successful had he played like he plays this year. So on a talent alone basis, LeBron belongs here. But as for what actually happened he does not.

[elementally morale]

The fact that MJ was able to win with the triangle offense just proves how GOAT he was. The opposition KNEW what offense he was going to run and still couldn't stop it.

I never said he wasn't the greatest I've seen. I said the opposite. I just think he is not the best example here. Then again... my judgement may be clouded. I have no problem someone adding Jordan. Just never add Kobe, please.

[tontoz]

I certainly think Dirk belongs. As a stretch 4 he wasn't just an great scorer. The spacing he created helped the rest of the team. He wasn't really a ball dominant player which let other players get theirs.

I think people get too caught up in titles. A lot of things have to go right to win a title.

[elementally morale]

I certainly think Dirk belongs. As a stretch 4 he wasn't just an great scorer. The spacing he created helped the rest of the team. He wasn't really a ball dominant player which let other players get theirs.

I think people get too caught up in titles. A lot of things have to go right to win a title.

I kinda agree with your last paragraph. Still, I'm not sure Dirk was great enough. He fits 50% of the criteria for sure. He could work with anyone. The other half is having been great. Not just very good. And I'm not sure he was greater than Steve Nash who btw was my favorite player for years. And Nash was very very good with different set of players... I'm just not sure he was really great. I'm having the same problem with Steph Curry... but Curry has time to prove me wrong and Nash's time is already up.

Anyway... what is your full list then?

[tontoz]

I don't have a full list. You are more stringent on the "great" label than I am.

I would consider Reggie Miller for this list but i doubt you consider him great. Ray Allen as well. Nash works for me too.