NBA Discussion Thread

[Vikes99ej]

Still happy we're 5-3 so far this year. It just seems like we're cursed with these injuries.

[draftguru151]

Didn't see the game, but Wade almost didn't play last night because of his ankle so it's not really shocking he looked like ****.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by comahan

I absolutely love Jeff Van Gundy. I think he's hilarious, and just fun to listen to.

Jeff's my third favorite announcer after Stacy King and Clyde.

[Rob S]

If the #Knicks beat the Spurs tonight (don't think they will), I'm going full BBD.

On the Clipper, I still don't see them getting out of the second round. I'll take the Spurs and Thunder over them right now and I'm pretty sure the Lakers will do something about their horrific bench.

I agree with Brody that Clips absolutely fall about sans Paul. They probably wouldn't make the playoffs.

I don't agree with Brody about Bledsoe, you can tell he is going to be a good player.....it takes a while to learn the PG position in the NBA and he's just starting to get his head around it. He'll never be an all star, but that's fine. He'll be a starter.

[tjsunstein]

Originally Posted by yo123

I'm confused. Mo Williams already didn't come back.

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Umm TJ, he's on the Jazz.

I misread yo's post on 3043. I thought he Was suggesting Mo be traded back in a deal for Bledsoe. Yeah, I don't know.

[Polamalu_is_God]

Jamal Crawford, pure hooper.

[MetSox17]

Saying the Clippers would fail without the best PG in the NBA isn't really groundbreaking..

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Saying the Clippers would fail without the best PG in the NBA isn't really groundbreaking..

Obviously, but it was a point Brody made and seemed to be getting busted on for.

[y.f.s.]

Comahan, are you old enough to remember the 85-86 Rockets team? Probably not, huh?

Reason I ask is because I've read a few different pieces on them recently...about how Hakeem and Sampson just tore threw the Lakers like it was a joke in the WCF before losing to (arguably) the greatest team ever in the 85-86 Celtics.

Then drugs and Sampson's back injury slammed their window shut and Hakeem was playing with stiffs until the mid-90s. Believe it was the Dream himself who said the 85-86 team would have killed their championship teams.

This team has piqued my curiosity.

[dabears10]

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Comahan, are you old enough to remember the 85-86 Rockets team? Probably not, huh?

Reason I ask is because I've read a few different pieces on them recently...about how Hakeem and Sampson just tore threw the Lakers like it was a joke in the WCF before losing to (arguably) the greatest team ever in the 85-86 Celtics.

Then drugs and Sampson's back injury slammed their window shut and Hakeem was playing with stiffs until the mid-90s. Believe it was the Dream himself who said the 85-86 team would have killed their championship teams.

This team has piqued my curiosity.

I hope you would then read the Grantland oral history that was just released. It is pretty great.

Also, Gasol Dream Shake:

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by Rob S

Obviously, but it was a point Brody made and seemed to be getting busted on for.

Not really, I just don't like Bledsoe. He's looked really good as a backup guard, but he doesn't even average 6 assists per 36. That's pretty sad.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by dabears10

I hope you would then read the Grantland oral history that was just released. It is pretty great.

Also, Gasol Dream Shake:

That was disrespectful.

[tjsunstein]

Bledsoe has improved drastically but he still isnt ready to start on a contender. He's going to look a lot better coming off the bench. I like his defense, obviously, but I don't think I trust him setting an offense up. Not yet atleast. Being on the same team as Mo Williams, Chauncey Billups, and obviously Chris Paul this early in his career has been immensely beneficial seeing that he's only 22 in his 3rd in the NBA. A lot of maturing to do, still, but he still has to learn the position. Remember, he played next to John Wall as more of a 2. This is the perfect situation for him playing with capable points on the roster, and he can find openings for catch and shoots. We're looking at hos basement right now, he's reached that but his ceiling is still a long way away. I honestly don't know if he can ever be a starting PG, he hasn't played that role since HS.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Varejao is a better rebounder and passer than Thomas ever was. He's an incredibly useful player and any team can easily contend with him as a starting big man.

I noticed something about your taste in basketball. You love high IQ players, selfless players who give great effort and play team ball. You like those players to a point where you overrate their contributions to the team.

Being a Pistons fan I can see how you developed that preference. The Pistons have built championship teams on that philosophy. It's why you love Denver so much, and guys like Varejo, Fared, Gortat etc. While disliking the high usage players.

That's where we differ. I have no problem with those players, as long as they are strictly complimentary/bench guys. I wouldn't build a team around that. I value scorers much more. I value team defense, but feel that can be taught by a good coach. Scorers are a premium, and I put a high emphasis on them.

Varejo is nothing more than a good complimentary player. That's it. He is very replaceable.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I noticed something about your taste in basketball. You love high IQ players, selfless players who give great effort and play team ball. You like those players to a point where you overrate their contributions to the team.

Being a Pistons fan I can see how you developed that preference. The Pistons have built championship teams on that philosophy. It's why you love Denver so much, and guys like Varejo, Fared, Gortat etc. While disliking the high usage players.

That's where we differ. I have no problem with those players, as long as they are strictly complimentary/bench guys. I wouldn't build a team around that. I value scorers much more. I value team defense, but feel that can be taught by a good coach. Scorers are a premium, and I put a high emphasis on them.

Varejo is nothing more than a good complimentary player. That's it. He is very replaceable.

I don't think anyone said they would build a team around Varejao. Correct if I'm mistaken but didn't you call him a scrub? And now all of sudden he's a 'good complimentary player'? Which one is it? Or did you just backtrack because everyone was calling you out on that **** and now you're just trying to save face.

[D-Unit]

Vareflop sucks and I ain't backtrackin'. He's waaaaay overpaid too.

If he's starting for you, you have problems. Not even Lebron could win with him.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Paul

I don't think anyone said they would build a team around Varejao. Correct if I'm mistaken but didn't you call him a scrub? And now all of sudden he's a 'good complimentary player'? Which one is it? Or did you just backtrack because everyone was calling you out on that **** and now you're just trying to save face.

A good complimentary player IS a scrub.

Complimentary players get WAAAAAY overrated on here. They are so easily replaceable. Which I also stated about Varejo.

You can replace Varejo with about 20 other guys in the league that easily have the same skill set as him. That doesn't mean his contributions mean nothing. He's a good complimentary player. But because his contributions can so easily be replaced, he's also a scrub.

Depth is overrated. Complimentary players are overrated. Especially on this forum.

Hearing garbage on here about how Varejo is anything more than a solid contributor at best is laughable.

[bantx]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

A good complimentary player IS a scrub.

Complimentary players get WAAAAAY overrated on here. They are so easily replaceable. Which I also stated about Varejo.

You can replace Varejo with about 20 other guys in the league that easily have the same skill set as him. That doesn't mean his contributions mean nothing. He's a good complimentary player. But because his contributions can so easily be replaced, he's also a scrub.

Depth is overrated. Complimentary players are overrated. Especially on this forum.

Hearing garbage on here about how Varejo is anything more than a solid contributor at best is laughable.

how do you expect to build a team, you dont make sense

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bantx

how do you expect to build a team, you dont make sense

Star players determine how good your team is. Look at the Heat. Their depth (prior to this year) sucked. But they had Lebron and Wade.

Their center was Joel ******* Anthony. Those bandwagon Heat fans made Udonis Haslem sound like a decent player (he sucks). Mike ******* Miller was an important piece to their team.

And they went to 2 NBA Finals, and won 1. Should have won both if LeBron didn't act like a ***** his first year with Miami.

Stars win. Not your depth. The difference between a deep bench and a poor one is negligible if you have the superior star talent in the starting lineup.

[Rob S]

You can win in a bunch of different ways. You generally need at least one superstar to be a title contender, but how you build the team around him is up for debate. The Bulls of the past couple years are a great example of role players being critically important/not replaceable.

[bantx]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Star players determine how good your team is. Look at the Heat. Their depth (prior to this year) sucked. But they had Lebron and Wade.

Their center was Joel ******* Anthony. Those bandwagon Heat fans made Udonis Haslem sound like a decent player (he sucks). Mike ******* Miller was an important piece to their team.

And they went to 2 NBA Finals, and won 1. Should have won both if LeBron didn't act like a ***** his first year with Miami.

Stars win. Not your depth. The difference between a deep bench and a poor one is negligible if you have the superior star talent in the starting lineup.

How do you think the mavericks won the year before? With depth.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Star players determine how good your team is. Look at the Heat. Their depth (prior to this year) sucked. But they had Lebron and Wade.

Their center was Joel ******* Anthony. Those bandwagon Heat fans made Udonis Haslem sound like a decent player (he sucks). Mike ******* Miller was an important piece to their team.

And they went to 2 NBA Finals, and won 1. Should have won both if LeBron didn't act like a ***** his first year with Miami.

Stars win. Not your depth. The difference between a deep bench and a poor one is negligible if you have the superior star talent in the starting lineup.

Yes that was Lebron's fault, not because the Mavericks had the superior bench in that series.

[bigbluedefense]

How many championships did the Bulls win?

The true championship contenders in this league have 2 star players, and a bunch of good complimentary players around them, with good team defense.

That's the blueprint to win championships. Good team defense, 2 star players who can score and create their own shot, and role players around them.

[bigbluedefense]

You guys seriously want to play that game? Do we want to go over the past 10 championship teams in this league and see who won more often than not?

The Spurs and Lakers. Both followed the blueprint I stated. Who won in the 90s? The Bulls. Had the same blueprint I stated.

Every now and then, your purist teams fart in the wind and get lucky, but most of the time, that's the blueprint to success.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

How many championships did the Bulls win?

The true championship contenders in this league have 2 star players, and a bunch of good complimentary players around them, with good team defense.

That's the blueprint to win championships. Good team defense, 2 star players who can score and create their own shot, and role players around them.

If you don't think the Bulls were a title contender before the Rose injury then you're ignorant. I'd argue the Spurs of the past 2 years haven't had a superstar either (TP is massively underrated, but not quite a superstar imo although that's debatable). You're just stuck defending a crappy ideology.

Look, yeah, you generally need 1 superstar to contend. Beyond that though, it's a personal choice. You can sacrifice depth for a couple stars/very good players or spread the cash around to assemble a team that is deep/works well together. Both work, you just need to get past your bias.

The Mavs just proved you wrong. You can say LBJ bitched out all you want, but it just proves my point further. If they had more depth instead of Bosh, the role players could've picked up some of the additional slack there and maybe the 4th quarters wouldn't have even mattered because Miami had such a big lead.

I know what you're saying, but it makes no sense and you are taking way too hard a stance.