Do you believe Lebron can't win a championship because he had to get on a superteam to do so? How about KG without Allen/Pierce? Or Duncan without Robinson/Parker-Manu? Or Shaq without Kobe(and vice versa)?
Can't make it out of the 1st round with T-Mac. An alleged T-Mac fan should know better than anyone that you can't do anything without proper support.
Except Paul takes up a much larger chunk of the available money the team has to spend, which means his chances are not good. And I don't agree that they're the same player, nor would most reasonable people.
Paul's main job is to get people easy shots, and he makes the max to do it. Guys who can get their own shots usually command more salary than guys who can't. Does anyone else not see this obvious problem?
If you're looking at guys who aren't worth your salary, I'm suprised that you would look at Chris Paul instead of Blake Griffin...
If you read through the thread, Griffin's weaknesses as a player have been discussed at great length. Last year, Blake Griffin averaged 18/8 and shot 54%. Al Jefferson averaged 18/9 on about 50% shooting, and Jefferson has a significantly better offensive game than Griffin. Jefferson is getting paid 13.6mm per season. Blake Griffin averages about 18mm per season.
Any reasonable person who watched the NBA in the 80s and today would agree with me. They are the same player-- incredible ballhandlers who are devastating scorers but have a pass-first mentality. They are also fearless in crunchtime. Paul is just Isiah Thomas adapted to the modern game, which means a bit more range and a slightly slower pace. Maybe you are talking about Isiah Thomas on the Kings, although I'm not sure how it's even possible you'd make that mistake since he doesn't have two titles and his game is nothing like Paul's.
I'm not sure where you get "significantly better offensive game" from considering that Griffin scores at a higher rate more efficiently. This was both before and with CP3. Last year Jefferson had a PER of 20.9 and a WS/48 of 0.148. Blake had a PER of 22.4 and a WS/49 of 0.198. These are not nontrivial differences. The NBA is a game of edges and these edges are the difference between highly paid stars and just good players.
Since Al Jefferson has a mid-range jumper and one of the most refined post games in the league, he can be the centerpiece of an entire offense. Blake Griffin is nowhere near that level. And because Al Jefferson was the centerpiece of the Jazz offense, it's not surprising that he was less efficient than Blake Griffin.
But Blake was more efficient even as a rookie, when he was the centerpiece of the Clipper offense. Jefferson has a great post game but he is slow and nowhere near the passer or ballhandler Blake is. This is far more limiting on offensive versatility than a better midrange game from a big.
I wasn't as familiar w/ the Clippers back then as I am now. And right now, Blake Griffin doesn't have the tools to be an offensive centerpiece. Yao was slow and a poor ball-handler. Did that limit his offensive versatility? And secondly, who cares if Griffin is a good ball-handler and passer? As long as the defense doesn't respect his mid-range jumper, he's not going to be able to take defenders off the dribble. Are you really trying to argue that Blake Griffin is more of an offensive threat than Al Jefferson? If so, give up. If you replaced all of Blake Griffin's flashy dunks with simple layups, he wouldn't get anything close to max contract.
Yes, Blake is much more of an offensive threat than Al Jefferson. He is much quicker, a much better ballhandler, a much better passer, and far more versatile. GMs don't value Blake because he can dunk-- it's because he's the rare bigman whose athleticism lets him move like a much smaller man. If you traded Blake for Al, the Clippers would get worse because Al can't fit into a faster paced scheme. Al is basically a short center, which is why he isn't valued even though he puts up pretty good numbers.
Both players recieve the ball in the post and Blake scores more at a higher efficiency. This was both before and with CP3. It doesn't matter how you score. Blake also does a lot more offensively than Al does in terms of getting teammates involved. He also can be placed into any offensive scheme since he can play at any pace. But believe what you want. I'm sure you'll find tons of people who agree with your obvious basketball genius.
Except Griffin doesn't receive the ball in the post very much. Most of his points come off pick and rolls, transition offense, offensive rebounds, or when he's able to get deep position right next to the basket. Yep, he's very versatile. But he's not good enough to be the 2nd best player on a championship team. Why not start a new thread and find out? "Which player is better suited to be the focal point of an offense?" And if you make a poll, don't make it anonymous.
See I can tell from your responses here that you haven't watched Blake much. Maybe you saw him in the playoffs when he admittedly wasn't very good (but was also injured). If you go by espn, of course you think of him as a dunker. Blake gets most of his scores initiated from the midpost. He will turn and faceup to drive or back down if single covered. He is less aggressive since cp3 joined but I suspect this will change under Doc. He will get a few easy dunks a game but less athletic players like Al would not have these opportunities. The bottom line is that Blake scores at a high efficiency and is includes generating a lot of his offnse from the mid or high posts. Just watch the last two Clipper games to see how he got the majority of his points. It's not all pick and roll or lob city as many would have you believe. In fact, the CP3/Blake pick and roll is very much underused.
blake grffin is athletically talented but needs to take another step. he is limited offensively, if he steps up big time the clippers could be a force to be reckoned with.
