Which Situation Would You Rather Be In? Knicks or Sixers?

[Greenie]

you do need a team but more than that you need a really great player. likely 3-4 if you want to win a title.

Fixed

kd & curry are the only two who are really great.

Draymond and Klay are really, really good too. Dray might win DPOY and Klay is one of the best shooters in the history of the league while be a good defender himself.



So you need two overall GOAT candidates along with the best defensive player in the league and a GOAT shooter candidate....and that's before you get to the bench.

[Scalabrine]

One player can't win. You need a team of good players.

Look at the playoffs. Not one team that made it was a one man squad.

The San Antonio Spurs, Boston Celtics and Houston Rockets each had 1 All-Star and were 3 of the top 4 seeded teams. Each team was carried really by one main guy and had a nice mix of depth, versatility and coaching to get them to where they were.

In other words they were not one man squads.

Spurs - Kawhi, LMA, Gasol, Mills, Simmons, Green.

Rockets - Harden, Anderson, Gordon, Ariza, Beverly, Capela.

Celtics - Thomas, Horford, Bradley, Smart, Crowder


Just because players don't have "allstar" next to their name for the season doesn't mean they are not major positive factors on playoff teams.

Heck, some of the dudes I listed were allstars in the past or at the very least participants(and winners) of certain skills highlighted during all-star weekend. They are good players.

If you mean literally that no one man can beat a team with five men then yes I totally agree but aside from LaMarcus Aldridge, those guys are all role players at this point of their careers. It's kind of absurd to be like "oh the Rockets aren't a one man squad because they have Ryan Anderson". They would be in the running for the number one pick this year without James Harden. Same goes for the Thunder without Westbrook and the Pacers without George, they made the playoffs too.

All I'm saying is that you can still be a playoff team while being carried by one guy and in the recent past (Dirk and the Dallas Mavericks) you can even win a championship. I don't think at this stage, with the Warriors and Cavs both are their peaks with 3-4 All-Stars each, that that is really possible, but I still think that you can have a playoff team that is pretty much carried by one guy as long as you surround him with solid depth and coaching.

[Greenie]

look, i'm just kind of past the point of fooling myself that you can win with anything but one of the top 5 players in the league. everything else is secondary to that. yeah there might be an exception occasionally but it's really all about that.

No. You need multiple great players. One or two is not enough if you're looking at titles. And that's not even counting needing good players as depth.

If you're just looking at trying to get to the playoffs you need at least 1 really good player along with like 5 good players.

you need that first though greenie. everything else is built off having one of those players. if not you're wasting your time.

Not really. If you have a team full of really good players you can attract a great one that's on a team full of bums as long as you can afford them.

If NO doesn't get their **** together soon AD will bolt after this contract is done.

[Greenie]

The San Antonio Spurs, Boston Celtics and Houston Rockets each had 1 All-Star and were 3 of the top 4 seeded teams. Each team was carried really by one main guy and had a nice mix of depth, versatility and coaching to get them to where they were.

In other words they were not one man squads.

Spurs - Kawhi, LMA, Gasol, Mills, Simmons, Green.

Rockets - Harden, Anderson, Gordon, Ariza, Beverly, Capela.

Celtics - Thomas, Horford, Bradley, Smart, Crowder


Just because players don't have "allstar" next to their name for the season doesn't mean they are not major positive factors on playoff teams.

Heck, some of the dudes I listed were allstars in the past or at the very least participants(and winners) of certain skills highlighted during all-star weekend. They are good players.

If you mean literally that no one man can beat a team with five men then yes I totally agree but aside from LaMarcus Aldridge, those guys are all role players at this point of their careers. It's kind of absurd to be like "oh the Rockets aren't a one man squad because they have Ryan Anderson". They would be in the running for the number one pick this year without James Harden. Same goes for the Thunder without Westbrook and the Pacers without George, they made the playoffs too.

All I'm saying is that you can still be a playoff team while being carried by one guy and in the recent past (Dirk and the Dallas Mavericks) you can even win a championship. I don't think at this stage, with the Warriors and Cavs both are their peaks with 3-4 All-Stars each, that that is really possible, but I still think that you can have a playoff team that is pretty much carried by one guy as long as you surround him with solid depth and coaching.

That solid depth is made up of really good players though.

Ryan Anderson is the best shooting PF in the game. Eric Gordon is one of the best shooters in the game. Bev is one of the best defensive guards in the game and he can hit his threes too. Ariza is a great defensive player that will hit that three too.

Add those guys to Harden and yeah, playoffs.

[Thugger HBC]

Rockets certainly are a one man show, Rockets are lotto without Harden. It's just the supporting cast fits the game plan...tons of threes, spread the court.

I'd say Okc is a one man show too with Westbrook...lotto without him as well. They only won 47with him putting up historic numbers.

Spurs have a decent team even without Kawhi. I do think they make the playoffs if Kawhi didn't play a single game for a season.

[god shammgod]

you seem to be missing the point. the question was, who was better off..ny or philly. and i said, whoever ends up having a real franchise player. because that's what you need as your starting point. i don't even know how that's debatable.

[prolific96]

anyhow. if one of those guys in philly becomes a top 5 player, i want to be them. if not, i don't care how many young players and picks they have. it don't really mean much.

Yes and no. Young talented but not top "5 players" can acquire you "top 5" players or very close to it i.e. Boogie and Harden. IMO flexibility and patience is the key, which is why the Sixers are the team to be. Ideally you have a better balance of players (younger and older) like Boston so you can win while still building for the future.

[Greenie]

you seem to be missing the point. the question was, who was better off..ny or philly. and i said, whoever ends up having a real franchise player. because that's what you need as your starting point. i don't even know how that's debatable.

Who's future looks better right now Shamm? That's the question.

Us or them?

[god shammgod]

anyhow. if one of those guys in philly becomes a top 5 player, i want to be them. if not, i don't care how many young players and picks they have. it don't really mean much.

Yes and no. Young talented but not top "5 players" can acquire you "top 5" players or very close to it i.e. Boogie and Harden. IMO flexibility and patience is the key, which is why the Sixers are the team to be. Ideally you have a better balance of players (younger and older) like Boston so you can win while still building for the future.

those boogie and harden deals were teams making bad deals. also boogie don't count because he aint top 5 in any way. although it being top 5 is just kind of arbitrary anyway. it might be 3 or 4 or 6 depending on the talent in the league at the time. the point is without one of these players, your chances are pretty slim. you might put together a detroit pistons team and win a championship but that's an aberration. and patience is important, because you got to be patient until you draft one of those players.

[Greenie]

Rockets certainly are a one man show, Rockets are lotto without Harden. It's just the supporting cast fits the game plan...tons of threes, spread the court.

I'd say Okc is a one man show too with Westbrook...lotto without him as well. They only won 47with him putting up historic numbers.

Spurs have a decent team even without Kawhi. I do think they make the playoffs if Kawhi didn't play a single game for a season.

A one man show means you're carrying bums.

The Pelicans are a one man show. The Rockets are not.

[god shammgod]

you seem to be missing the point. the question was, who was better off..ny or philly. and i said, whoever ends up having a real franchise player. because that's what you need as your starting point. i don't even know how that's debatable.

Who's future looks better right now Shamm?

Us or them?

who knows ? they have more chances to be better but that doesn't mean it will work out. they didn't draft duncan or lebron. there's nobody who's a sure thing. so we'll have to see who develops.

[prolific96]

anyhow. if one of those guys in philly becomes a top 5 player, i want to be them. if not, i don't care how many young players and picks they have. it don't really mean much.

Yes and no. Young talented but not top "5 players" can acquire you "top 5" players or very close to it i.e. Boogie and Harden. IMO flexibility and patience is the key, which is why the Sixers are the team to be. Ideally you have a better balance of players (younger and older) like Boston so you can win while still building for the future.

those boogie and harden deals were teams making bad deals. also boogie don't count because he aint top 5 in any way. although it being top 5 is just kind of arbitrary anyway. it might be 3 or 4 or 6 depending on the talent in the league at the time. the point is without one of these players, your chances are pretty slim. you might put together a detroit pistons team and win a championship but that's an aberration. and patience is important, because you got to be patient until you draft one of those players.

I agree in the current climate you need superstars.

But bad trades will continue as long as there are financial, fit, and personality issues.

[Greenie]

So I'm having a debate with a few friends on which team is actually in a better situation.. The New York Knicks or the Philadelphia 76ers..

The 76ers may have 4 1st round picks in June and with all the cap space in the world (most likely to re-sign their own guys), but the Knicks have a team that could fight for playoffs next season and the best overall prospect (Porzingis).

Just an interesting debate we had and wanted to hear your thoughts.

This is the question. Who has the better situation out of the two teams? We don't know who the best player will be, but as of today who's situation is better?

[spree8]

The obvious answer now is Philly. I mean damn, Fultz, Simmons, Embiid with good role players like Saric, TJ, & Covington, plus how many other picks? Still have Okafor to trade too.

We have KP, Willy and the measly #8. Ohh smh, I was having such a good day, why did I click on this thread

[Greenie]

you seem to be missing the point. the question was, who was better off..ny or philly. and i said, whoever ends up having a real franchise player. because that's what you need as your starting point. i don't even know how that's debatable.

Who's future looks better right now Shamm?

Us or them?

who knows ? they have more chances to be better but that doesn't mean it will work out. they didn't draft duncan or lebron. there's nobody who's a sure thing. so we'll have to see who develops.

So your answer is the same as mines at this point. Philly.

[prolific96]

Rockets certainly are a one man show, Rockets are lotto without Harden. It's just the supporting cast fits the game plan...tons of threes, spread the court.

I'd say Okc is a one man show too with Westbrook...lotto without him as well. They only won 47with him putting up historic numbers.

Spurs have a decent team even without Kawhi. I do think they make the playoffs if Kawhi didn't play a single game for a season.

A one man show means you're carrying bums.

The Pelicans are a one man show. The Rockets are not.

How the Pelicans a one man show? Cousins, JRUE aint nothing?

[god shammgod]

my answer is who knows. kp works out and the knicks suck next year, as they will, and that pick works out even better than him and it'll be us.

[god shammgod]

go look at the list of who wins titles. it's a list of the top couple of players in the sport at that time with a few exceptions. that's what's important. they love to sell you on the idea that the team is what matters. no it aint. sure the great player needs a team. but without the great player you're just wasting time.

[MaseInYourFace]

What's the consensus now?

Sixers definitely a better situation right now but a lot could still go wrong for them. But yeah I'd definitely take their flexibility and potential over what knicks have.

[Scalabrine]

In other words they were not one man squads.

Spurs - Kawhi, LMA, Gasol, Mills, Simmons, Green.

Rockets - Harden, Anderson, Gordon, Ariza, Beverly, Capela.

Celtics - Thomas, Horford, Bradley, Smart, Crowder


Just because players don't have "allstar" next to their name for the season doesn't mean they are not major positive factors on playoff teams.

Heck, some of the dudes I listed were allstars in the past or at the very least participants(and winners) of certain skills highlighted during all-star weekend. They are good players.

If you mean literally that no one man can beat a team with five men then yes I totally agree but aside from LaMarcus Aldridge, those guys are all role players at this point of their careers. It's kind of absurd to be like "oh the Rockets aren't a one man squad because they have Ryan Anderson". They would be in the running for the number one pick this year without James Harden. Same goes for the Thunder without Westbrook and the Pacers without George, they made the playoffs too.

All I'm saying is that you can still be a playoff team while being carried by one guy and in the recent past (Dirk and the Dallas Mavericks) you can even win a championship. I don't think at this stage, with the Warriors and Cavs both are their peaks with 3-4 All-Stars each, that that is really possible, but I still think that you can have a playoff team that is pretty much carried by one guy as long as you surround him with solid depth and coaching.

That solid depth is made up of really good players though.

Ryan Anderson is the best shooting PF in the game. Eric Gordon is one of the best shooters in the game. Bev is one of the best defensive guards in the game and he can hit his threes too. Ariza is a great defensive player that will hit that three too.

Add those guys to Harden and yeah, playoffs.

Well I believe that we have different definitions of one-man squads then. If you replace Harden with another average guard then that is a lotto team, if you replaced Ariza with another average SF then that team is about the same as they are now. That, to me, is a one-man squad.

A team like the Cavs who have 3 All-Star quality players plus some really good role players like Thompson, Smith, Korver, Frye, Shump, Williams, etc. would still probably be a playoff team if you took out one of the 3 all stars and replaced them with an average starter. Is there not a difference there to you?