I think championship teams need that. It's not really putting all the glory or responsibility on to a select few players on a 15 man NBA team, but the NBA is a superstar driven league because teamwork is not the be-all-end-all way to sustain success. Player match-ups are more important in basketball then say soccer or hockey, where teamwork is really the ONLY way to be winning all the matches.
It's not pretty, but isolation plays work in basketball. It's a set play based off of taking advantage of a the match up. It gives the other players the time to focus on other areas of basketball like ball possession, positional rebounding, or spot up shooting which the iso player (superstar) integrates in to their playing style. I don't think the Heat right now can be beaten without the advantage of having a player of such quality, with the ability to draw double-teams and so on creating space and chances for his teammates to thrive against a team like the Heat.
Of course there are parameters like the coaches offensive/defensive system as well, but let's probably another conversation for another time.
And yes, I think Kevin Love is a superstar, no doubt.
No, I don't not think he's THE superstar that would help this team win a championship due to factors including assets lost to acquire him, his fit on the current team, and so on.
But yes, with a superstar LIKE him on the team the coaches can adjust their offensive schemes based on him being involved in likely 25% or more of the offensive touches in a normal game.
The term superstar is too vague that you can name sooo many players that by those standards are superstars. Joe johnson is a najor example how did he fare againstbthe heat.
Hell even demar is good at doing those things. Couldnt he be consifered a superstar. I think you can win with a colection lf demar type guys rayher than one god like player surronded by role llayers. If you have 3/4 suprrstars that fit well together than the superstar method works. So far only the heat have that working lakers failed with d12 and the brooklyn mess didnt work.
Sooo...your up buddy
Sent from my GT-S7560M using Tapatalk
But despite 'the facts', I have to believe that a team without a superstar can succeed in this league, although it seems very likely not to happen. Otherwise, I may just as well stop watching, because I think the Raps have a better chance of being a successful team without a superstar than they have of actually acquiring one.
So, how do you guys feel? Do you believe that a superstar is absolutely necessary to be a contender, or do you think it's possible to contend with a bunch of good to great players? Because if you think the former is necessary, than I can understand how cheering for this team could be frustrating, and how it will continue to be so in the future.
Horford would be my ideal player for Toronto. I would even be ok giving up Amir for him.
-"You canít run from me. I mean, my heart donít bleed Kool-Aid."
-"ďI ainít no diva! I donít have no blond hair, red hair. Iím Reggie Evans.Ē
I've already mentioned how I feel about this. But the Spurs this year could alter that mentality.....
If the Spurs win, we'd have an example of a team without superstars in their prime, but superstars that maintain a superstar presence about them, with intangibles like experience, drive, leadership (from a superstar standpoint) factoring in.
Sent from my GT-S7560M using Tapatalk
Look at this list and think of the caliber of stars that these teams were built around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
We're talking LeBron, Duncan, KG/Pierce/Allen, Kobe, Shaq, Jordan & Pippen, Hakeem, Thomas, Bird... These aren't just all-stars or really nice players, these are all time greats, top tier Hall of Famers, and most frequently there are 2 or 3 of them on each team.
Recent exceptions to the megastar rule are the Mavs and Pistons, who both capitalized on a perfect-storm of variables and weak competition. Dirk has said on Grantland that the Mavs wouldn't have won a championship a couple years before or after the one they got - they capitalized on a power vacuum and had everything come together perfectly within their own roster that year, a confluence of variables you can't really plan for.
If you're serious about winning a championship, you better aim to get a top 5 player in the league, period. You gotta shoot for KD, or a similar star, even if this is "just" Toronto.
Yup, basically the only way to win a title is with a top 5 player in the league on your team.
The only other way is to have 3-4 all-star level players that fit together perfectly and can excel together on both sides of the ball (07-08 Celtics and 03-04 Pistons).
I think the odds of a superstar-less team winning the championship is higher than the odds of the Raptors landing a superstar in the next few years.
I also think the odds of a superstar coming to Toronto increases by a lot if the Raptors make several conference finals.
It's kind of crazy for a franchise that has 0 7-game series victories to be thinking championship or bust. Baby steps. Baby steps.
Ray Allen - 26.4ppg, 4.5rbg, 4.1ast 90% ft, 37.2% 3pt
Paul Pierce - 25ppg, 5.9rbg, 4.1ast, 39%3pt
Kevin Garnett - 22.4ppg, 12.8rbg, 4.1ast
They were all at least top 3 at their positions
I just think they were a little more "All-Star level" players than the 03-04 Pistons.
So really theres no point to argue me cause it further proves the point of what you were saying lol The Pistons are really the only team without a top 5 talent that has won a championship in the however many years...
Actually... was Nowitzki a top 5 player in the league when Dallas won? Hmmm, I don't think so.
You come at the King, you best not miss.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)