Dwight Howard or Chris Paul?

[MONTENEGRINO]

And Howard has skill issues, which is a problem when you aren't nearly as strong as Shaq.

Oh man! Just imagine him in his prime... He will grow ALOT till his age of 28-29...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Chris Paul is the guy I want on my team. His talent seems to be of a rarer nature, if that makes sense.

[stretch]

Chris Paul is the guy I want on my team. His talent seems to be of a rarer nature, if that makes sense.

Agreed.

[adidas11]

Dwight Howard. Its always easier to build a team around a dominant big man, than it is a small point guard.

Look at the past 50 years in NBA basketball, and note how many of the championships were won by teams with a dominant big man.

And then note how many were won by a team built around a small point guard.

Only two championships were won by a dominant point guard (Iasiah Thomas). And they went through to build a team around him (and by which, he had to tone down his game), including basically beating the crap out of the rest of league in order to accomplish that.

[stretch]

Dwight Howard. Its always easier to build a team around a dominant big man, than it is a small point guard.

Look at the past 50 years in NBA basketball, and note how many of the championships were won by teams with a dominant big man.

And then note how many were won by a team built around a small point guard.

Only two championships were won by a dominant point guard (Iasiah Thomas). And they went through to build a team around him (and by which, he had to tone down his game), including basically beating the crap out of the rest of league in order to accomplish that.

Now Jordan might now have been a small guard, but he was a guard, and they built around him, and had no dominant big man. the difference was that he was so dominant, that teams focused more attention to him, and he could thus make his teammates better too, including the big men, much like Chris Paul does with Tyson Chandler. the Hornets are capable of winning an NBA championship, and the core of Paul, West, and Chandler have not even hit their primes.

I'll say this... as you said... its easier to build around dominant big men, but it is definitely more than possible to build around dominant guards as well. Chris Paul is definitely one of those that you can build around.

[stretch]

and the most common thing about the leaders on each championship team has nothing to do with size, but it has to do with the ability to take heat off his teammates to make them better players. that is hands down the most important ability for a leader to have in basketball.

[Bob Lanier]

Dwight Howard. Its always easier to build a team around a dominant big man, than it is a small point guard.

Sure. And when Dwight Howard becomes dominant instead of just pretty damn good that'll become a major argument in his favor.

[adidas11]

Now Jordan might now have been a small guard, but he was a guard, and they built around him, and had no dominant big man. the difference was that he was so dominant, that teams focused more attention to him, and he could thus make his teammates better too, including the big men, much like Chris Paul does with Tyson Chandler. the Hornets are capable of winning an NBA championship, and the core of Paul, West, and Chandler have not even hit their primes.

I'll say this... as you said... its easier to build around dominant big men, but it is definitely more than possible to build around dominant guards as well. Chris Paul is definitely one of those that you can build around.

Yeah, but the Bulls winning championships took a long time, and it sure wasn't easy. They had to wait until they had complementary players that developed enough to meet the task. (Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant). It wasn't as if Jordan just started playing better and then they started winning championships.

Look at the Lakers, as a prime example. A team 'built' around Kobe Bryant. The Lakers really didn't start ascending until this season when Andrew Bynum became more of a force. And when he went down with the knee injury, the Lakers were losing almost every game. And when they were able to bring in Pau Gasol, the Lakers started winning again.

Basketball games are won in the paint. Period. From rebounding, to blocked shots, to determining your defensive rotation, to being the ideal first option for scoring. So because of all of these facets, a dominant big man is going to have more impact on the game.

I didn't say that it isn't possible to win by building a team around a point guard. Its just very difficult. The "easier" route is going with a big man.

[ItalianSpursFan]

Superman...

[jacobdrj]

Generally, high assisting PG's don't win Championships in the modern NBA. Not that their assists preclude their winning, but because, perhaps, the team is ultimately too dependent on him.

I would take a defensive PG with a good jumper over a good passer.

Centers, not PFs, but Centers win championships. You need a good GM, of course, and PFs also do not preclude les, but how goes your C, so goes your team.

However, keep in mind, the Hornets don't just have a PG, they have a guy in West who schooled Rasheed Wallace in his rookie season. And he is showing he is really that good. And they have a VERY good center in Chandler to anchor the D. We saw with Detroit in 2004, that a 2 headed mosnter at PF and C can also overcome shortcomings at true center (and to an extent the Spurs Championship, with D-Rob being a defensive liability, and Timmay being quite green).