PDA

View Full Version : Pistons defense, the best you have ever seen ?



Unclebuck
06-14-2004, 09:18 AM
I don't want a bunch of stats because stats wise it is no contest this is the best defense ever. Stats aren't valid because the game has changed. So I want your comments on the best defensive teams you have ever seen.

Here are the best I have seen.

It started with the "Bad Boys", the Pistons from 1988 through 1990. They were very physical, and played a very rough style of defense. Isiah was very underrated defensively. Joe Dumars was a great defender. But what made the Bad Boys unique is you had different styles depending on whether the starter were in or the bench.

With the starters of Laimbeer and Mahorn, they were physical, tough and rough, but then when they went to their bench, and put in Rodman and Salley, they IMO were even better. Rodman and Salley with their quickness and athleticism, often changed the game when they came in.


The next great defensive team was the Bulls. Either from 1991 through 1993, and then again from 1996 through 1998. There were some differences between the two teams, but for the most part they were similar. The combo of Pippen and Jordan were the best small forward, shooting guard tandem I have ever seen without question. Then you add in either Horace Grant or Rodman, they were long, quick and very disruptive. The Bulls were the best stealing team I have ever seen.



Next, we move to the Knicks from 1993 through 1995. Yes I know they never won a chmapionship, but I think they belong in the discussion. They picked up where the Pistons left off. With Derek Harper and Greg Anthony, I consider that the best defensive point guard combo ever. Then you had Starks who was underrated, Mason, Ewing, Oakley, very physical. They had a great system and even though Ewing and Oakley were not the quickest players and could be beat one-on-one, their help defense was unmatched.


Many may not include the Spurs in the mix but I do. I consider the Spurs of 1999 better defensively than Spurs of 2003, mainly because David Robinson was in his prime. The strength of this team was obviously their shot blocking of DR and TD. They also played a good system.


And of course the current Pistons team. They combine a number of things to make them so good. Aggressive system, relentless attitude and incredible athleticim. But what sets them apart is their shot blocking and unlike some of the other teams mentioned here, they get shot blocking from 3 positions because of Prince. Billups is underrated, very physical and Rip has gotten to the point where now he is very good. The Wallaces a great, great combo, they are better than the Robinson and Duncan combo because the Wallaces can step out on the floor and help and recover much better.


OK here is how I rank these teams.

1) Current Pistons - best I have ever seen
2) Bulls
3) Bad Boys
4) Spurs
5) Knicks

If you want to argue the Knicks were better than the Spurs, I really would not argue with you, that is a tossup.

Suaveness
06-14-2004, 09:24 AM
Curious..how would you rank our defense UB? We also seemed to play quite well, especially in the ECF.

naptownmenace
06-14-2004, 09:27 AM
This Piston's team is the greatest defensive team of all-time. The best I've ever seen.

Their team reminds me of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens that won a NFL championship through their tenacious and relentless defense. They broke several defensive records during the regular season. Despite that, no one really thought they could win it all until they made it to the Super Bowl. Even then they weren't the favorites - a different sport but similar to what the Pistons have done this season.

Incredible team defense 1-5. 'Nuff said.

fwpacerfan
06-14-2004, 09:39 AM
Very good list UB. The only change I would make would be to flip the Spurs and Knicks. That Knicks team was very, very good defensively. They had the guards you mentioned and then they had Ewing underneath and Oakley. Oakley never seemed to get the pub he deserved. He was an excellent defender and had a very good understanding of the game which made him a good help defender.

To change the subject a little - the Pistons/Lakers series has shown me that the Pacers are a much better defensive team than the national media gave them credit for. All I heard during the ECF was 'bad offense, bad offense'. Well guess what it was 'good defense' that was causing the bad offense. The Pistons look like a pretty good offensive team against the Lakers.

Unclebuck
06-14-2004, 09:46 AM
Curious..how would you rank our defense UB? We also seemed to play quite well, especially in the ECF.


Pacers are very good, but becuase if the guards, they aren't in this group. As I mentioned in a post yesterday, Pacers are very good up front with Ron, Al, Jeff, J.O., even Bender, and Cro, and what the heck I'll throw in Pollard even. But the backcourt is not nearly as good as it needs to be

BillS
06-14-2004, 09:48 AM
I think you give too little credit to this years' Pacer defense.

We lost our series against the Pistons due to our inability to capitalize off the open shots we actually were able to get, not only due to the quality of defense.

The defense was neck-and-neck and I think the offense of Rip Hamilton was the difference between the two teams.

Slick Pinkham
06-14-2004, 09:53 AM
I think that the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Harper, and Rodman were the most defensively disruptive team I've ever seen.

Granted that was perimeter-based defense, denying the passing lanes, denying position to MAKE entry passes, stopping dribble penetration, poking the ball from behind even if beaten, getting hands on every pass, and seemingly garnering every loose ball. They totally lacked a Ben Wallace-like interior defensive presence, but each of the four I mentioned was quick, aggressive, long-armed, and a nightmare to play against. Jordan was probably the best defender in the league, and the other 3 were all in the top 10.

I'd put this Pistons team right behind those 70+ win Bulls teams.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2004, 10:33 AM
Some people equate low scores with great defense, but I don't. The objective of defense is to hold your opponent to fewer points than you score. Conversely, the objective of offense is to score more points than you allow. Its all relative.

The Celtics of the 1980's played great team defense. The pace of the game was quicker, so scores were higher and FG% was higher, but IMO, but so what? When those Celtics wanted to lock down an opponent, they were as good as any team mentioned above.

Oscar's Bucks teams, Red Holzman's Knicks, the Celtics of Russell - there wasn't anything wrong with their defenses. The key to the showtime Lakers was to get stop so Rambis could get the rebound and make a quick outlet pass. No stops and no rebounds = no Showtime.

I don't think you can pick a 'best of all time.'

DisplacedKnick
06-14-2004, 10:35 AM
This Pistons team is very, very good. I have a very hard time ranking them - I think I'll give them more credit down the road.

We all knew the Lakers had some flaws. After Shaq and Kobe they dropped off a lot. Of course many analysts thought Payton & Malone would make the difference. They've been shadows.

What sets these guys apart is Larry Brown. I look at the finals games and wonder, "Could the Pacers or New Jersey have done the same thing?"

My answer is yes - but WOULD they? I don't know as I've ever seen anyone say, "OK, we'll let Shaq get his - at this point in his career I don't think he can go hard for 40 minutes any more." It's basketball rope-a-dope - Shaq's so energetic and active (I haven't seen him move like he did last night in 3 years) at the start that he has nothing left.

"We'll give hard covers to everyone else but really target Kobe."

Would Carlisle have come up with the same strategy? We know Byron Scott didn't.

Anyway, I'm gonna have to let distance lend perspective. They certainly belong in the discussion - but don't forget the 60's Celtics. The game was called very differently but they knew how to play D.

And the 72-73 Knicks - they gave up under 100 PPG for the season (and absolutely stifled LA in the finals) when nobody else even thought of doing that.

Kegboy
06-14-2004, 12:53 PM
The best D I've ever seen was the Miami Sol, coached by our own Ron Rothstein. :cool:

Kstat
06-14-2004, 01:31 PM
Whoever compared the 2004 Pistons to the 2000 Baltimore Ravens was RIGHT ON. I make the same comparison all the time.

The Bad Boys will still be the best defensive team of all time to me, because they did it over a much LONGER period of time, much like the "steel curtain" of pittsburgh in the 70's.

But for ONE SEASON, this is the best defensive team I've ever seen.

Suaveness
06-14-2004, 01:35 PM
Whoever compared the 2004 Pistons to the 2000 Baltimore Ravens was RIGHT ON. I make the same comparison all the time.

The Bad Boys will still be the best defensive team of all time to me, because they did it over a much LONGER period of time, much like the "steel curtain" of pittsburgh in the 70's.

But for ONE SEASON, this is the best defensive team I've ever seen.

Yes, that defense was there only for 1 year, because of salary problems. But pistons will be around for awhile.

However, that doesn't mean you are winning the title next year. WE ARE. Get used to it. ;)

Kstat
06-14-2004, 01:40 PM
Whoever compared the 2004 Pistons to the 2000 Baltimore Ravens was RIGHT ON. I make the same comparison all the time.

The Bad Boys will still be the best defensive team of all time to me, because they did it over a much LONGER period of time, much like the "steel curtain" of pittsburgh in the 70's.

But for ONE SEASON, this is the best defensive team I've ever seen.

Yes, that defense was there only for 1 year, because of salary problems. But pistons will be around for awhile.

However, that doesn't mean you are winning the title next year. WE ARE. Get used to it. ;)

You'll be better next year, but so will we.

Itll be a fun year in 2005.

However, until then...........well, you get the idea ;)

Suaveness
06-14-2004, 01:44 PM
Whoever compared the 2004 Pistons to the 2000 Baltimore Ravens was RIGHT ON. I make the same comparison all the time.

The Bad Boys will still be the best defensive team of all time to me, because they did it over a much LONGER period of time, much like the "steel curtain" of pittsburgh in the 70's.

But for ONE SEASON, this is the best defensive team I've ever seen.

Yes, that defense was there only for 1 year, because of salary problems. But pistons will be around for awhile.

However, that doesn't mean you are winning the title next year. WE ARE. Get used to it. ;)

You'll be better next year, but so will we.

Itll be a fun year in 2005.

However, until then...........well, you get the idea ;)

I'm not listening.... :notlistening:

We'll still beat you :darkness:

fwpacerfan
06-14-2004, 02:28 PM
I think you give too little credit to this years' Pacer defense.

We lost our series against the Pistons due to our inability to capitalize off the open shots we actually were able to get, not only due to the quality of defense.

The defense was neck-and-neck and I think the offense of Rip Hamilton was the difference between the two teams.

Sounds A LOT like what an objective Lakers fan would say as well. There were very few open shots for either team during "The REAL NBA Championship (formerly known as the ECF)". I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

I like the analogy of the Ravens v. Pistons defense. I don't agree that this Pistons team has only done this one year - they have been very, very good defensively for at least the last 2 and maybe 3 years.

Kstat
06-14-2004, 02:38 PM
I think you give too little credit to this years' Pacer defense.

We lost our series against the Pistons due to our inability to capitalize off the open shots we actually were able to get, not only due to the quality of defense.

The defense was neck-and-neck and I think the offense of Rip Hamilton was the difference between the two teams.

Sounds A LOT like what an objective Lakers fan would say as well. There were very few open shots for either team during "The REAL NBA Championship (formerly known as the ECF)". I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

I like the analogy of the Ravens v. Pistons defense. I don't agree that this Pistons team has only done this one year - they have been very, very good defensively for at least the last 2 and maybe 3 years.

The Ravens were a very good defensive team prior to 2000. Very good, but not great. That also describes the Pistons before Rasheed Wallace.

Pig Nash
06-14-2004, 02:38 PM
I think you give too little credit to this years' Pacer defense.

We lost our series against the Pistons due to our inability to capitalize off the open shots we actually were able to get, not only due to the quality of defense.

The defense was neck-and-neck and I think the offense of Rip Hamilton was the difference between the two teams.

Sounds A LOT like what an objective Lakers fan would say as well. There were very few open shots for either team during "The REAL NBA Championship (formerly known as the ECF)". I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

I like the analogy of the Ravens v. Pistons defense. I don't agree that this Pistons team has only done this one year - they have been very, very good defensively for at least the last 2 and maybe 3 years.

:laugh:

Hicks
06-14-2004, 03:40 PM
I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

Too soft? What the hell?

Pig Nash
06-14-2004, 03:42 PM
I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

Too soft? What the hell?

Ron just meant that at the end of the series too many of the Pistons heads were still firmly attached to their bodies.

fwpacerfan
06-14-2004, 03:45 PM
I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

Too soft? What the hell?

His words. I happen to agree - the Pacers were the aggressor for periods and they garnered leads when they were. For whatever reason they stopped going aggressive to the hole and their lead vanished. I gathered that is what Ron meant, but he is a little hard to understand sometimes. :D

DisplacedKnick
06-14-2004, 03:51 PM
I heard Ron Artest on the Dan Patrick Show today and he nailed the reason the Pacers lost - he said the Pacers played too soft.

Too soft? What the hell?

Maybe on offense - they let Detroit take them out of it. Detroit takes a lot of teams out of their offense. If you're tough enough you stick with it and hope you eventually break through.

Not on defense - not that I saw anyway. I guess Rip got on a roll but that was about it.