The idea for this "mental exercise" comes from watching OKC without two of its' best players. Is there a even worse team than OKC if you take two of its' best players out? I'm not sure. Houston: Harden, Howard - I think they beat current OKC GSW: Curry, Thompson/Bogut Spurs: Parker, Duncan/Leonard Clippers: CP3, Griffin Memphis: ZBo, Gasol Toronto: Lowry, DeRozan Chicago: Gasol/Noah, Butler Miami: Wade, Bosh etc. etc. Do you think any of these teams (and few others I didn't list like Washington, for example) is worse than current OKC?
Rockets only won by 4 with Harden and Howard. I don't think any of the teams you listed would be significantly better than the Thunder if they lost their two best players and had to play the same schedule the Thunder have so far. Eight of the twelve Thunder losses have been against teams that made the playoffs last year, and 5 losses have been by 5 points or less, with a sixth loss in overtime. That being said I think it will be really tough for them to make the playoffs even if Durant and Westbrook both come back 100% right away in the minimum time projected, which I believe is ~2 weeks from now. West is just so strong. Current second seed in the east Washington would only be the 5th seed in the west, and 11th seed Nuggets would be the 7th seed in the east.
Most of those teams would be pretty awful without their two best players. Houston definitely doesn't have the depth required to win many games without Harden and Howard. Miami might be even worse without Wade and Bosh. We already know how many games the Cavs win without Lebron and Love. Golden State would be terrible without Curry and Thompson; they aren't elite defensively to begin with and Bogut and Lee would not be able to carry the scoring load. The Clippers without CP3 and Griffin would be awful too. Memphis without Gasol and Z-Bo would be bad, but at least they'd still have Mike Conley. Toronto doesn't even need to lose both Lowry and DeRozan. Lowry makes that engine go. I don't have any faith in that team without him. Here are the two exceptions on that list: I think the Spurs might play .500 ball even without Duncan and Parker. I put nothing past Pop these days. And they'd still have Leonard and Ginobili. I also think the Bulls could continue to play well without Noah and Rose (their two best players) because they would still have Gasol, Taj Gibson and Butler AND they are in the Eastern Conference.
The Spurs don't have "two best players." You can say that they have a committee of four best players: Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard. They'd still be quite competitive without any two of those four.
Yeah is this a joke? We would definitely be bottom of the league without our top two? Ibaka and Adams vs Jones and Black? Reggie Jackson ain't bad you know. And like someone else said we barely won with Howard and Harden. Talk about overrating our players.
JR: Thanks for the link to the article. It was written on November 5th. Since their last win against Boston though, OKC had all the important pieces sans Westbrook and Durant (Jones, Roberson, Jerret, McGary and Smith are not the most important rotation players) and it lost 6 straight, including losses to Detroit and Denver. I think coach becomes even more important when roster is depleted since he can define new roles and motivate lesser players to play above their level (see Thibs, Pop...). I'd like to see what author of article JR posted would say now about OKC.
But it's only one game. They won three of 15 and lost last six with all the important pieces except Durant/Westbrook back. Like them we lack depth, I agree, but I'm sure Beverly/Terry/Ariza/Jones(Pap)/DMo would not be underdogs against current OKC team.
Yes, but as the article points out, the current OKC team has been missing significantly more than just Durant and Westbrook during their start.
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24788012/kendrick-perkins-and-serge-ibaka-froze-out-reggie-jackson-vs-nets Do you think Thibs or Pop would allow such things to happen? I think Durant's and Westbrook's absence exposed Brooks and the chemistry issues this team has. A lot of people are saying OKC plays great defense and that they don't have a go-to player at end of games that would take responsibility. This reminds me of Bulls and Spurs when they were decimated and still winning at an acceptable rate. Especially Bulls that had an atrocious offense at times last year and especially the year before that.
The Bulls and Spurs would probably still be good. The Blazers are an interesting case, and if you don't take Asik from the Pelicans they'd still be decent. Knicks, Rockets, and OKC would be up the creek without a paddle. Clippers would fall apart w/o CP3.
Dude. That team is terrible. Our offense would be horrible without Hardens playmaking and Howard's double teams. We would not get to 60 points. And our interior defense would be pretty bad without Howard.
Bulls and Spurs always had great records their key guys. Pop and Thibs are creating really cohesive units where every player exactly knows his role and okays for the victory.
Can you please admit you were way off with your thread? Maybe youre not watching this Knicks game. Maybe you wouldn't make this argument if you were
Apologies for lashing out Was very frustrated not only its the way we were playing, but also because I had a huge parlay bet relying on a Houston win
