Views
268
Comments
35
  • November 03, 2009 01:46 PM ET

What Pistons team would you want to coach, the "Bad Boys" of the 80's, or the "Contenders" of 2000s?

Recession (11-6-0) vs rudedog: 9-1 great old man (155-105-25)
7
Votes
1
Votes
7
Votes
1
Votes


My choice would be the Bad Boys of the 80's. Being a Michael Jordan fan, and watching his battles against Chuck Daly's men made me gain respect for that team, they played their tough style regardless of their opponent.

- The Pistons throughout the 80's had a team of talented and charismatic players, ranging from Isaiah Thomas, to Bill Laimbeer, a young Joe Dumars, and post presences like John Salley and Dennis Rodman before his tenure with the Bulls. The combination of these players and others shaped the Pistons gameplay into a physical, defense-oriented style of play.

I would prefer to coach the Pistons in this era because at this time they had a fire that isn't rivaled by many others. While many other teams would give up after losing in the playoffs for consecutive years, this team built up a will to win. In the 83-84 season they were eliminated from the playoffs by the Knicks, in the first round, but in 84-85 they won the first round, and proceeded to play the Celtics, and lost in six. They lost in the first round of the 85-86 season, but faced the Celts again in the 86-87 season, only to lose in 7, eventually in '88, they beat the C's to go to the Finals, thats fire.


This is very weird because me and my friend were discussing the 2000s contenders last night.

And I said then that they were one of the best starting five as a unit.

Hear me out.

I'm going to be honest, I've never seen the 80s Pistons play, but I've read and heard lots about them. I know their game plan was beat you up and rough you up.

However, I'd rather have a talented team like the 2000s team. That team was a legitimate team of 5 all-stars that meshed so perfectly, they could have won in any era. Each person knew their role, fulfilled their role, and were perfect for their role.

Chauncey was their clutch player, their leader, and he was great at it.
Rip was the main scorer who could fill it up
Tayshaun was the mismatch problem for defenses and was an outstanding defender (a la block on Reggie Miller)
Sheed was the other mismatch problem, but was their low post threat.
Big Ben was the defensive leader. He didn't bring much offensively, but he was such a force defensively that he had to be on the floor.

Essentially, if you think of the perfect starting five that could mesh together, this is the team you'd think of.

Good luck


I agree that they did have an excellent starting five, not perfect by any means, but very good. Why would you want to coach that squad though, I can obviously understand having them but why would you want to coach them.

- The 80's Pistons never gave up, and the more they lost, the more it built up a desire for them to win, as I stated in my previous argument. They persevered every single single season though losing, until they finally beat the Celtics, then made it to the Finals against the Lakers. The Lakers beat them in 7 games in their first meeting, but the next season they met again, and the Pistons swept them, due to Isaiah Thomas' hall of fame like gameplay. I would want to coach the 80's Pistons because they refuse to give up, if you do something, they will come right back harder than before.

- The team of the 2000's had a promising squad, in which most of them reached their prime at about the same time, but they never had a dominant a team as the Bad Boys.


but they never had a dominant a team as the Bad Boys

Really?

The 2000 teams made it to 6 STRAIGHT conference finals
The 80s team made it to just 4 straight

The 2000s team finished with a record of 384-190, which averages to a 55-27 record
The 1980s team finished with a record of 320-172, which averages to 53-29 per season

To me, it seems like the 2000s team was better than the 80s team in every way. The 2000s team had 5 all-stars, the 80s team had 3.

In every way possible, the 2000s team was a better team. Sure the 80s team won one more title, but the 2000s team ran into one of the best championship teams in recent memory with the Spurs.

And the 80s team was never necessarily "dominant." They won some titles but they didn't steamroll through the competition, as you can see in the records.


"And the 80's team was never necessarily "dominant." They won some titles but they didn't steamroll through the competition, as you can see in the records." - Really? I must have not been watching when the 2000's Pistons 'steamrolled' through the competition.

- You said you have never seen the 80's Pistons play, and believe me it shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J9vW3zXGEs

Theres your shot at it.

Also I would like to point out the title of the TD, and the intention of it: The TD Title asks why you would want to coach the team that you picked, I didn't see that in your argument, because you might not have decided yet, I don't know.

- You said the 2000's team had a team of 5 All-Stars, well your almost right, it was 4. But, when I'm looking for a team to coach, I don't want a team of all-stars, I want a team of playoff players.


I didn't see that in your argument, because you might not have decided yet, I don't know

Obviously I want the 2000 Pistons, hence me taking this TD.

Really? I must have not been watching when the 2000's Pistons 'steamrolled' through the competition.

I wasn't referring to the 2000s Pistons steamrolling through anyone. I was just saying the 80s Pistons hadn't steamrolled anyone either.

You said you have never seen the 80's Pistons play, and believe me it shows.

I don't need to see the 80s Pistons play to know that I would rather have the 2000s Pistons. They meshed so well with each other that, I would argue, they were one of the best starting fives as a unit all-time. They each had a specific role that they filled so well and they each complemented the other 4 on their team so well. And when I said they were 5 all-stars, I meant that, at some point, all 5 people were an All-Star at some point.

You literally listed no stats in this TD to back up your point. Your discussing the fact/opinion argument in the comment section and don't list any facts. Your argument is entirely fact based and you didn't even counter the facts I threw out.

Comments (35) Add A Comment

November 3, 2009  01:48 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

The Bad Boyzs, now let's read the arguments.

November 3, 2009  02:25 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Who wouldn't want to coach the Bad Boys?

November 3, 2009  02:39 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Daddy Rich loved coaching the Bad Boys in the mid 80's to early 90's

November 3, 2009  03:18 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Recession challenged me directly to this TD.

Are you going to post an argument?

November 3, 2009  03:29 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I'd choose the Bad Boys, just so I could hit Laimbeer with a foream when he wasn't looking.

November 3, 2009  03:31 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

This must be what they call a recession TD.

November 3, 2009  09:11 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#4):
Originally posted 03:18 PM ET  11.03 by Hyped78

Recession challenged me directly to this TD.Are you going to post an argument?

Its all there. Here we go :)

November 3, 2009  09:16 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I have to go with the 2004 Pistons and I'm sure Hyped78 will back this up. Good luck to both of you.

November 3, 2009  09:19 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#8):
Originally posted 09:16 PM ET  11.03 by GALAN

I have to go with the 2004 Pistons and I'm sure Hyped78 will back this up. Good luck to both of you.

Thanks, lets see

November 3, 2009  09:28 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

The Bad Boys. They had Scott Hastings. He is an entertaining, funny individual.

November 3, 2009  10:30 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

If I am a coach, I want the team that won the most championships, because that would make me the most money.

November 3, 2009  11:03 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Had the best nicknames for a basketball team. Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson was my fav. But "The Worm" was a great one too.

November 4, 2009  05:24 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Well, I basically agree with left.

November 4, 2009  05:28 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

"My choice would be the Bad Boys of the 80's. Being a Michael Jordan fan, and watching his battles against Chuck Daly's men made me gain respect for that team, they played their tough style regardless of their opponent."

I don't have any respect for a team which half of the players walk off the court without shaking hands with the Bulls after losing to them in the conference finals. Dumars was a class act, Isiah was/is a tool.

November 4, 2009  07:39 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#13):
Originally posted 05:24 AM ET  11.04 by Hyped78

Well, I basically agree with left.

Why did you leave the throwdown? I want to TD with you, your topic, challenge me.

November 4, 2009  08:05 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#15):
Originally posted 07:39 AM ET  11.04 by Recession

Why did you leave the throwdown? I want to TD with you, your topic, challenge me.

Because it's a no-brainer, everybody would want the Bad Boys of the 80's vs. the "contenders" of the 2000s. There really is no valid argument to make for the contenders

November 4, 2009  08:34 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I'll take this, but I can't do the argument for about 2 and a half hours because of class.

November 4, 2009  09:07 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

IF....you go with the bad boys of the 80's then you have to go with the officiating back then as well....they got away with murder sometimes.....would not happen today.

November 4, 2009  11:11 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#14):
Originally posted 05:28 AM ET  11.04 by Darth Maim

"My choice would be the Bad Boys of the 80's. Being a Michael Jordan fan, and watching his battles against Chuck Daly's men made me gain respect for that team, they played their tough style regardless of their opponent."I don't have any respect for a team which half of the players walk off the court without shaking hands with the Bulls after losing to them in the conference finals. Dumars was a class act, Isiah was/is a tool.

But I'll wait to vote after the arguments.....

 
November 4, 2009  11:26 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Bro, solid arguments by Right so far.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 YODA 51 3 2 92.9%
2 Hyped78 190 19 4 90.1%
3 FoosBall 118 12 3 89.8%
4 [The] Coach 130 21 7 84.5%
5 Southern Discomfort 42 7 3 83.7%
6 Argos: Lets Go Packers! 48 8 4 83.3%
7 BBK - Now it's all football 51 9 6 81.8%
8 BSchwar... 128 27 6 81.4%
9 BobbyOr... 45 10 3 80.2%
10 rstowe 315 79 20 78.5%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Cowher to Bears or Texans?
    Views
    58007
    Comments
    2978
  2. 2
    Yankees to cut down on spending
    Views
    6493
    Comments
    1159
  3. 3
    Disrespected Ryan takes dig at Moss
    Views
    9494
    Comments
    708
  4. 4
    Sources: Clausen punched outside bar
    Views
    21711
    Comments
    224
  5. 5
    D'Antoni still mad at Robinson
    Views
    5848
    Comments
    207

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Chico 2.0
  2. 2
    BBK - Now it's all football
  3. 3
    rstowe
  4. 4
    gigi_iv
  5. 5
    Never NDing Struggle

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    What happens if Bama and UT…
    Views
    757
    Replies
    45

  2. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    Longhorns vs. Aggies…
    Views
    281
    Replies
    58

  3. NFL > Cleveland Browns

    Cleveland Fail: Lions dump a…
    Views
    148
    Replies
    26

Blogs