NBA: A young athletic team, or a veteran led team?

[primetime]

Hello folks, just curious what people think about something me and my best friend were discussing.

If you were a NBA GM, what would you rather have? A young, athletic team or a veteran led team? My friend insists that teams that are young and athletic are the "new trend" in the NBA and teams need to follow that (i.e. Lakers..)

I say I would rather have a veteran led team. If you look back over the last few decades, what type of teams always seem to win a title? Veteran led teams. I agree you need some young parts to a team, but I noticed "wily ol' veterans" end up winning titles and making the key plays down the stretch.

So would you rather have that young, exciting, athletic team (OKC Thunder, Memphis for example) or a veteran led team (Lakers, Dallas, Boston for example)?

 

[The Fallen Angel]

Ill take the young athletic team for the long haul, the veteran teams all break down at some point.

Hell id take the young team for one season, look what happen to the "veteran" i prefer old, Lakers and Celtics.. a team can get really old really fast

 

[primetime]

But when was the last time a "young, athletic team" stayed together long enough to win a title? It is rare if they win a title..

 

[The Fallen Angel]

But when was the last time a "young, athletic team" stayed together long enough to win a title? It is rare if they win a title..

true, but if im a gm and your giving me the choice, weighing the positives and negatives of both i think it makes more sense to have a young team

 

[smokinj]

I'll take the younger more athletic team every time. Its always about youth. You can win with old guys for only so long, also older guys get injuries they seem to always be nursing. Plus look at Shaq this year, stealing money from the Celtics. He finally did the right thing and retired.

Sure a young team may not have the guidance or experience but look at OKC, they nearly pulled it off and they are not too far behind.

One last thing, its harder for an older team to stay motivated, its alot easier for a young team to stay hungry. Think about that, Prime.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

One last thing, its harder for an older team to stay motivated, its alot easier for a young team to stay hungry. Think about that, Prime.

I think it's the other way. An older team is more desperate to win, knowing that their days are numbered. A younger team thinks they'll have plenty of oppotunities to accomplish their goals and is probably enjoying the spotlight more than anything.

 

[smokinj]

I think it's the other way. An older team is more desperate to win, knowing that their days are numbered. A younger team thinks they'll have plenty of oppotunities to accomplish their goals and is probably enjoying the spotlight more than anything.

Maybe an older team that has never won a title is hungrier, like Dallas this year. Look at Boston and San Antonio. They just seemed a little complacent. The other thing is, a younger team is faster. More energy. Those old guys don't play as many minutes.

 

[primetime]

I agree that youth is very important. But if you sit back and think about, what teams actually win the title? Veteran led teams. Fiend is right, the older teams are more hungry because a lot of them have guys who have been in the league for years and no title. Young teams think they have forever to win a title.

It's an interesting quandry because most people feel you have to be young to win a title. But if you pay attention to history, veteran led teams are the ones who actually win the title....

Think about that Smokinj. Can you name the last time a team led by young athletic players won the title?

 

[Soda Bobinski]

If you were a NBA GM, what would you rather have? A young, athletic team or a veteran led team?

Depends on what my goals were as a GM :

- if I was going for the title , then hands down , I'd rather have the team made up mostly of vets.

- if my owner was pushing for ticket & merchandise sales , then I'd opt for the younger squad.




OKC seems like they're in the best spot to accomplish both scenarios.

 

[The Fallen Angel]

I agree that youth is very important. But if you sit back and think about, what teams actually win the title? Veteran led teams. Fiend is right, the older teams are more hungry because a lot of them have guys who have been in the league for years and no title. Young teams think they have forever to win a title.

It's an interesting quandry because most people feel you have to be young to win a title. But if you pay attention to history, veteran led teams are the ones who actually win the title....

Think about that Smokinj. Can you name the last time a team led by young athletic players won the title?

i guess it could also depend on where your the GM. Say for example for the Knicks.. then i take the veteran led team, win one and i have a job for life because if you win one for the Knicks you will be set in that city

But if my goal is longevity in most other cities, than i go with the younger squad and pile up wining seasons and maybe get a title

 

[maniactickler]

Veterans.

 

[Angel_2]

Veteran team hands down, they already have the Trust in one another to take the big shot and Chemisty built. Also they've got the experience so in key situations they know what to do where a younger team, lacking experience is more likely to make a big mistake that would cost them a game.

Sure Veteran teams break down alot quicker but give me a team with Experience and Chemisty anyday of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[smokinj]

I agree that youth is very important. But if you sit back and think about, what teams actually win the title? Veteran led teams. Fiend is right, the older teams are more hungry because a lot of them have guys who have been in the league for years and no title. Young teams think they have forever to win a title.

It's an interesting quandry because most people feel you have to be young to win a title. But if you pay attention to history, veteran led teams are the ones who actually win the title....

Think about that Smokinj. Can you name the last time a team led by young athletic players won the title?

I guess I thought the orignal thought was would you rather, as a GM take over a young team or a veteran team. If I'm only at the helm for a few years then I guess I'll take the vets but for the long term, I want the young guys with a few older slightly past their prime vets. Its a good question you pose however.

 

[primetime]

I guess I thought the orignal thought was would you rather, as a GM take over a young team or a veteran team. If I'm only at the helm for a few years then I guess I'll take the vets but for the long term, I want the young guys with a few older slightly past their prime vets. Its a good question you pose however.

Yeah, it is a good question to ponder. I used to say give me the young team. That way you can win for a long time. But I decided to look at it differently when a friend of mine said they should break up the Lakers because they're getting "old". I do not want to break up the nucleus of this group so I thought about it. You see teams like San Antonio and Boston not making the Finals this year and they are older. The Conference Finals had 3 "young, athletic teams" (OKC, Heat, Bulls).

But then I looked at it further. Let's go back 20 years. Most of the title teams, were veteran teams. I kept seeing "old wily veterans" make play after play after play. From Hakeen Olajuwan's heroics, to Robert Horry's 3 point shot, to PJ Brown making plays for the Celtics, and now Dirk Nowitzki, the champions usually ended up winning the title.

So if your goal is to win titles, perhaps having a veteran led team, with some youth sprinkled in, is the way to go. No one would really have a wrong answer to the question I posed, but it gives you something to think about.

Crazy huh?

 

[primetime]

Veteran team hands down, they already have the Trust in one another to take the big shot and Chemisty built. Also they've got the experience so in key situations they know what to do where a younger team, lacking experience is more likely to make a big mistake that would cost them a game.

Sure Veteran teams break down alot quicker but give me a team with Experience and Chemisty anyday of the week and twice on sunday.

That reasoning is why I am leaning towards veteran teams. They are usually more hungry because they've been in the league for a long time and no championships. They've been through the wars and experience usually wins in the end...

 

[smokinj]

Yeah, it is a good question to ponder. I used to say give me the young team. That way you can win for a long time. But I decided to look at it differently when a friend of mine said they should break up the Lakers because they're getting "old". I do not want to break up the nucleus of this group so I thought about it. You see teams like San Antonio and Boston not making the Finals this year and they are older. The Conference Finals had 3 "young, athletic teams" (OKC, Heat, Bulls).

But then I looked at it further. Let's go back 20 years. Most of the title teams, were veteran teams. I kept seeing "old wily veterans" make play after play after play. From Hakeen Olajuwan's heroics, to Robert Horry's 3 point shot, to PJ Brown making plays for the Celtics, and now Dirk Nowitzki, the champions usually ended up winning the title.

So if your goal is to win titles, perhaps having a veteran led team, with some youth sprinkled in, is the way to go. No one would really have a wrong answer to the question I posed, but it gives you something to think about.

Crazy huh?

The thing I always come back to is, sports in general are for young people, they can still be molded and are impressionable and coachable. Some, and I mean some older teams tune out coaching thinking they know everything, thus become complacent. I understand what you are saying though. Then theres the fatigue factor. You're right though, the veteran teams seem to more often win the championships. What do I know though, I guess thats why I'm not a GM. lol