PDA

View Full Version : Is Depth Overrated?



Bball
06-16-2004, 03:33 PM
Lots of people seem willing to accept a trade if it is one player or maybe two but losing three players (or more) seem to be causing some hesitation (or downright resistance).

But the only starter mentioned has been Artest. Would it really hurt to have some of our 'depth' erased and maybe rearranged with existing players getting larger roles or else a role player(s) brought in on a low dough contract?

I think depth is overrated and counter-productive in the long run. Of course someone could argue our depth is overrated in the first place I suppose.

-Bball

Kstat
06-16-2004, 03:34 PM
Seriously, after this last series, has there EVER been a worse time to question the relevance of depth? :laugh:

MSA2CF
06-16-2004, 03:36 PM
Kstat, who are the 1st/2nd best Pistons ever?

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 03:36 PM
LA didn't have it. Detroit had it. Which is why they won.

Slick Pinkham
06-16-2004, 03:37 PM
Kstat, who are the 1st/2nd best Pistons ever?

Isiah and Bob Lanier

Hicks
06-16-2004, 03:37 PM
I don't think it's overrated, but I think that I'd rather give it up for a superstar, because frankly I'd rather my team's biggest challange be "how do we add to the bench" rather than "how do we get a star".

I'd rather have the stars and then worry about filling the bench with good people. That should be easier and more likely to get done than acquiring a superstar, which is a rare thing.

MSA2CF
06-16-2004, 03:38 PM
Kstat, who are the 1st/2nd best Pistons ever?

Isiah and Bob Lanier

Thanks Ksta--Hey! Wait a minute.

Hicks
06-16-2004, 03:38 PM
LA didn't have it. Detroit had it. Which is why they won.

That's not it. It's part of it. I'd say the biggest reason LA lost was because they acted too selfish on offense, and played ****** defense over 75% of the time.

We play unselfish most of the time, and even if Ron leaves our team defense is still a lot better than LA's is.

Slick Pinkham
06-16-2004, 03:40 PM
I could be wrong, but Kstat would not be a sane man if he rated Ben over Isiah and Lanier right now. Fans of Dave Bing and Joe Dumars might feel their guy is a little above Big Ben too, though.

Kstat
06-16-2004, 03:44 PM
#1-Isiah Thomas
#2-Joe Dumars

Bob Lanier was without a doubt one of the 10 greatest centers of all time.

But his Pistons career was marked by playoff failure, and eventually he was dealt with hardly any playoff success. Most of his playoff victories came in Milwaukee.

Dave Bing falls in the same boat. outstanding performer, choked in the playoffs. He aksed to be dealt to a better team so we traded him.

As a player, of course id rate him over Ben.

But as a PISTON, Laimbeer did more, as did Ben Wallace.

Ben Wallace wil end his career as the Pistons' all-time leader in rebounds and blocks by a WIDE margin, and he may get the steals title too.

Not to mention Ben's got a ring, Lanier never came close. End of story.

As for Joe Dumars, there is nobody in the history of the organization I respect more. He's #2 on the franchise's scoring list, and he stayed with us through the bad times. Not to mention he's our freaking GM now.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 03:44 PM
LA didn't have it. Detroit had it. Which is why they won.

That's not it. It's part of it. I'd say the biggest reason LA lost was because they acted too selfish on offense, and played ****ty defense over 75% of the time.

We play unselfish most of the time, and even if Ron leaves our team defense is still a lot better than LA's is.

Yeah I didn't mean why. That was definitely a reason.

Bball
06-16-2004, 03:45 PM
Seriously, after this last series, has there EVER been a worse time to question the relevance of depth? :laugh:

Which ones of your bench are clamoring for starting spots? Which ones are making as much money as some teams starters? Which ones play but don't really embrace their role?

I'm not talking suiting up just 5 players. I'm talking about a focused roster with your starters all on the same page and with bench players who know their role and relish it. Maybe have some 'specialists' to come off the bench.

How many players do you need on the bench thinking their time as a starter should be coming immediately?

-Bball

naptownmenace
06-16-2004, 03:48 PM
I'd rather have the stars and then worry about filling the bench with good people. That should be easier and more likely to get done than acquiring a superstar, which is a rare thing.

The FA role players would flock to Indy to play beside TMac and JO.

Kstat
06-16-2004, 03:50 PM
Seriously, after this last series, has there EVER been a worse time to question the relevance of depth? :laugh:

Which ones of your bench are clamoring for starting spots? Which ones are making as much money as some teams starters? Which ones play but don't really embrace their role?

I'm not talking suiting up just 5 players. I'm talking about a focused roster with your starters all on the same page and with bench players who know their role and relish it. Maybe have some 'specialists' to come off the bench.

How many players do you need on the bench thinking their time as a starter should be coming immediately?

-Bball

You may as well have forgone that whole post and just typed "AL HARRINGTON."

Not every team has the same problems as Indiana. Even when Corliss Williamson was winning 6th man of the year he never had any illusions about starting.

Not all talented bench players let their ego disrupt their game.

Bball
06-16-2004, 03:54 PM
You may as well have forgone that whole post and just typed "AL HARRINGTON."

Al Harrington isn't the only player I am thinking of. He may be the biggest duck in the puddle tho.

Not every team has the same problems as Indiana. Even when Corliss Williamson was winning 6th man of the year he never had any illusions about starting.

Not all talented bench players let their ego disrupt their game.

You are making at least part of my point....

-Bball

naptownmenace
06-16-2004, 03:56 PM
You may as well have forgone that whole post and just typed "AL HARRINGTON."

Not every team has the same problems as Indiana. Even when Corliss Williamson was winning 6th man of the year he never had any illusions about starting.

Not all talented bench players let their ego disrupt their game.

Uh... I think that's what Bball was trying to say.

Detroit doesn't have the same problem as the Pacers when it comes to their bench. Both Al and Bender believe that they are superstars and I'm sure that even Austin believes he could start elsewhere. Even Carlisle alluded to this in his season ending interview - they need to thin out their forwards.

Bball
06-16-2004, 04:09 PM
You may as well have forgone that whole post and just typed "AL HARRINGTON."

Not every team has the same problems as Indiana. Even when Corliss Williamson was winning 6th man of the year he never had any illusions about starting.

Not all talented bench players let their ego disrupt their game.

Uh... I think that's what Bball was trying to say.

Detroit doesn't have the same problem as the Pacers when it comes to their bench. Both Al and Bender believe that they are superstars and I'm sure that even Austin believes he could start elsewhere. Even Carlisle alluded to this in his season ending interview - they need to thin out their forwards.

... and it could go even deeper. Not only starting but just who is 6th man... 7th man... 8th man.... DNP-CD....
I'm sure we have a situation where players question why so and so is in the game and ahead of them even from the bench.

-Bball

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 04:12 PM
Depth is overrated.

Look at the Finals. The key game was game #4, and the Pistons played their starters almost the whole game.

You need depth to get through the season, but the bench players have to know their place. Pistons have a great situation

ABADays
06-16-2004, 04:17 PM
I think it is. I have plenty of depth but the girls always wanted the striking good looks.