yes they still have a chance. it all depends on how nazr mohamed adjusts to their system. i feel mohamed is a weaker defender compared to ben wallace but i also think he is a more complete player because nazr is the type of player who does the dirty work, he's not a slouch at defnse, and he also has a decent post game. wallace is the best defensive palyer but he sure sucks on the offensive end. and did you remember their last game in the playoffs against the heat? where the heat resorted to the hack-a-ben and as expected ben wallace missed those crucial free throws...
its obviously all about the money for ben wallace no matter what he says in the papers, and i got no respect for guys like that...
2006-07-04 20:28:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by JACKASS 5
·
5⤊
2⤋
Well, we'll see what they're really made of now. Joe Dumars doesn't seem like a dummy. I've noticed this Pistons team is very well run. Look at who we have...Tayshaun, Rip, Chauncey, Rasheed, Dice...we make very good acquisitions and have an intelligent front office. It doesn't even seem Ben Wallace was much of a factor last year. I really do seem to think he's overrated in a way.
A few years ago, he seemed to be an offensive rebound monster that would always give Chucky Atkins and Chauncey plenty of chances to take second 3's. Now, after Rasheed was acquired, I've noticed Ben's effectiveness seemed to be in decline. He doesn't really get those rebounds anymore.
If we make a couple of key acquisitions, Ben Wallace won't be missed, and Chicago may realize they made a HUGE mistake. I don't think this was a bright move. Ben is worth 5-8 million a year long-term, period.
2006-07-04 20:22:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes they have a very good chance. Chauncey Billups is still one of the best defensive guards in the league, Tayshaun Prince is great at defense as is Rasheed Wallace. Then with the addition of Nazr Mohammad the Pistons should be alright. Mohammad has much better free throw shooting and much better offensive ability. Dumars would have most likely given Ben the maximum deal if he thought the Pistons could not survive without him. The defense intensity of the Pistons probably will not falter much because it is still what is the face of the franchise.
2006-07-04 21:30:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nate 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Ben Wallace is(was) the reason the Pistons were a defensive threat. Without him, they're just another team. My prediction:Bulls over Pistons in the Eastern Conference semifinals.
2006-07-04 21:23:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jon 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, absolutely. The loss of Wallace by no means kills the Pistons. In fact, it will be refreshing to see them play 5 on 5 on offense and not have the abysmal foul shooting of Ben. I don't think his loss hurts them much at all, and expect them to win the championship once again next year.
2006-07-04 22:10:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Cameron 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
As long as shaq is health enough to play there is no chance for the pistons with out Big Ben
2006-07-04 21:03:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by tacomcnair04 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hech no.
Just look over the past years, they are just going down, and without Ben it is gonna get even worse, cause he is one of the best defensive players in the league, and we have got to give him a credit when they beat Lakers back in 04.
2006-07-04 21:49:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by confusion_d 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, losin Ben's intensity will hurt a LOT. evn tho thy lost tht series to the heat, tht one block on shaq in game 5 proved how intense Ben's game can b. and lets face it rasheed and chancey ain;t gettin any younger. thy'll still make the playoffs but their defense took a big hit wit the loss of Big Ben.
2006-07-05 00:34:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Matt P 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No way! Because he was the player that helped build the defense. Are they going to make the playoffs? Yes, but they won't get past the second round at most.
2006-07-04 20:19:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by pippen 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
the pistons will make the playoffs but they will not beat miami or chicago or washington.
2006-07-05 02:34:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by david c 4
·
0⤊
0⤋