RealGM

It is difficult to make indirect comparisons, but I think people are underrating the level of talent on this squad. Let's put it this way. The team has 4 core members of the Celtics team. And this is a Celtics team that is rated to finish #3 in the East and is seen as one of the top 8-10 teams in the league. Imagine swapping the Celtics rookies, Kanter, Hayward for D. Mitchell, Middleton, Turner, Barnes, etc. That would be the roided up Celtics team and the deepest team in the league. Most people would put that team as one of the 3 best teams in the NBA.

And that team is getting beaten by the likes of France, Serbia, Australia, and almost losing to Turkey. Maybe it is not that the talent is overrated but NBA teams are just overrated? That is, the sum is just not as good as the individual parts for a typical NBA team?

Naw, it was garbage.

iamworthy wrote:Naw, it was garbage.

But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

mtron929 wrote:

iamworthy wrote:Naw, it was garbage.

But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

You need superstars to win in the nba

DaT WaVeY RiCaN wrote:

mtron929 wrote:

iamworthy wrote:Naw, it was garbage.

But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

You need superstars to win in the nba

But again, this team is like the better version of the Celtics and everyone (including myself) thinks the current Celtics would win around 50 games.

Agreed.

If any other international team had a roster of nothing but NBA players at their caliber individually they'd be considered loaded.

It was not nearly the best team the USA could put out but it was still more talented than any they faced.

mtron929 wrote:It is difficult to make indirect comparisons, but I think people are underrating the level of talent on this squad. Let's put it this way. The team has 4 core members of the Celtics team. And this is a Celtics team that is rated to finish #3 in the East and is seen as one of the top 8-10 teams in the league. Imagine swapping the Celtics rookies, Kanter, Hayward for D. Mitchell, Middleton, Turner, Barnes, etc. That would be the roided up Celtics team and the deepest team in the league. Most people would put that team as one of the 3 best teams in the NBA.

And that team is getting beaten by the likes of France, Serbia, Australia, and almost losing to Turkey. Maybe it is not that the talent is overrated but NBA teams are just overrated? That is, the sum is just not as good as the individual parts for a typical NBA team?

They had good talent.

The problem is that NBA guys on team USA need to have a huge talent gap between themselves and other teams in order to compensate for different rules, chemistry, team play...

They had equal or better individual talent. Jokic, Giannis, Bogdanovic are the only ones that are superior in talent to most of team USA. Jokic and Giannis than anyone.

They made a half assed preparation of 2 weeks.If you gonna send inferior talent at least have them practise together for a month to built some chemistry.

chudak wrote:

mtron929 wrote:It is difficult to make indirect comparisons, but I think people are underrating the level of talent on this squad. Let's put it this way. The team has 4 core members of the Celtics team. And this is a Celtics team that is rated to finish #3 in the East and is seen as one of the top 8-10 teams in the league. Imagine swapping the Celtics rookies, Kanter, Hayward for D. Mitchell, Middleton, Turner, Barnes, etc. That would be the roided up Celtics team and the deepest team in the league. Most people would put that team as one of the 3 best teams in the NBA.

And that team is getting beaten by the likes of France, Serbia, Australia, and almost losing to Turkey. Maybe it is not that the talent is overrated but NBA teams are just overrated? That is, the sum is just not as good as the individual parts for a typical NBA team?

They had good talent.

The problem is that NBA guys on team USA need to have a huge talent gap between themselves and other teams in order to compensate for different rules, chemistry, team play...

They had equal or better individual talent. Jokic, Giannis, Bogdanovic are the only ones that are superior in talent to most of team USA. Jokic and Giannis than anyone.

That is a good point. But now I am wondering even if you send a mid tier playoff NBA team that has good chemistry, they might still struggle against these teams. I don't know.

It's not the Celtics fault that your favorite player(s) didn't care to play. I know it's fun to crap on Boston, but they have nothing to do with FIBA.

I know it's going to be difficult for a few of you to understand it, but do your best.

zimpy27 wrote:It was not nearly the best team the USA could put out but it was still more talented than any they faced.

I agree to a point. The US had the best depth on paper but a few teams had better star players than the US which as we know is very important in basketball. And combining that with the lack of familiarity with the FIBA rules brought them down to the rest of the pack.

yep, the problem was the lack of useful centers besides turner.

mtron929 wrote:It is difficult to make indirect comparisons, but I think people are underrating the level of talent on this squad. Let's put it this way. The team has 4 core members of the Celtics team. And this is a Celtics team that is rated to finish #3 in the East and is seen as one of the top 8-10 teams in the league. Imagine swapping the Celtics rookies, Kanter, Hayward for D. Mitchell, Middleton, Turner, Barnes, etc. That would be the roided up Celtics team and the deepest team in the league. Most people would put that team as one of the 3 best teams in the NBA.

And that team is getting beaten by the likes of France, Serbia, Australia, and almost losing to Turkey. Maybe it is not that the talent is overrated but NBA teams are just overrated? That is, the sum is just not as good as the individual parts for a typical NBA team?

Don't forget the US Select team with G leaguers that beat them I believe as well.

They had a lot of talent still, I just think it was a ridiculously constructed team terible rebounders. If Lopez wasn't making three's like he didn't he's basically useless as he rebounds like a PG. Plumblee? WTF. They cut PG Tucker and he's the exact kind of role player I think this team could have used more than Kyle Kusma. I don't even think Kusma is good but just having more talent doesn't always mean a better team or fit.

DaT WaVeY RiCaN wrote:

mtron929 wrote:

iamworthy wrote:Naw, it was garbage.

But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

You need superstars to win in the nba

No, the genius Brad Stevens can win without superstars.

Still trying to figure out what was the purpose of bringing Plumlee and Lopez lol

mtron929 wrote:

iamworthy wrote:Naw, it was garbage.

But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

The NBA rules are different making the amount of non shooters a bit less of an issue. Gobert can shut down every one of these slashers in a way he couldn't in the NBA.

But this team would have a tough time even here. It would struggle because of a lack of shooting. Mitchell would be brutal. Kemba is more of a slasher. Barnes is not good but presumably Middleton would start over him.

Then we've got guys like Smart etc.

mtron929 wrote:

DaT WaVeY RiCaN wrote:

mtron929 wrote:
But if you put this team in the current NBA (a.k.a. roided up version of the current Celtics), it is currently one of the best teams in the NBA, right? It has to be.

You need superstars to win in the nba

But again, this team is like the better version of the Celtics and everyone (including myself) thinks the current Celtics would win around 50 games.

East is even weaker than it was last season due to injuries and team changing. The draft top two talents went west and the rest went to already young teams rebuilding. Celtics very well could finish top three but it’s believed to be a two team race out east.

Higgs Boston wrote:yep, the problem was the lack of useful centers besides turner.

Turner was far from useful.In the game that mattered he was as useless as Plumlee.

peja_the_legend wrote:

Higgs Boston wrote:yep, the problem was the lack of useful centers besides turner.

Turner was far from useful.In the game that mattered he was as useless as Plumlee.

U.S. team played really well with Turner. It was only outsourced once with Turner on court (-2 vs. France). Team was +63 in all other games with him. I thought he should have been shooting more threes.