And that's where you look silly in your argument. If that Cavs team was a super team, and they were, then yeah, this Lakers team is definitely a super team. All people heard in the beginning of the season was how the Lakers had the best depth in the league, especially with the additions of players like Harrell and Matthews to play off the bench. But all of a sudden the Lakers depth is not that good?blackstar wrote:killmongrel wrote:Yes, you got me, I've only been watching basketball about a decade ago. My base of reference by the way is the fact that the 2014/2015 and beyond Cavs for instance was as super team. But neither Kyrie nor Love were in same tier as AD. And that team's depth was not as good as this Lakers team. AD and the depth this current Lakers team has is more than enough to argue as being as good as that Cavs team outside of LeBron. So yes, it's valid to argue that this Lakers team is a super team.blackstar wrote:
That explains it then, you just started watching the NBA and have no base of reference.
Why would the Rockets not have been a superteam according to your criteria? A superstar and another top 7 player. High level role players in Capela, Gordon, Ariza, Beverley etc with experience in the playoffs.
And congrats for finding an exception to the rule. We're talking about superteams here and I don't see how that's relevant.
As for the Rockets not being a super team, since when was Chris Paul a super star or close to being one? He was an elite player that year, but I would hardly call that Rockets team a super team. If somebody wants to call them a super team, I would find that a hard argument to make. Two super stars is different from a one super star and an elite player.
Also, as for the 2011 Mavs team, you're the one that made this argument: "Newsflash - you need 2 high level stars at least to win a title. That's the MINIMUM."
So I have to ask again, who were the 2 high level stars on that 2011 team that beat the super team in the Finals? I think that super team had a particular player by the way.
The Cavs have more of an argument for being a superteam than these Lakers. Yes, a superstar and two high level all-stars have more of a argument for a superteam than 2 superstars. Forget about the role players because I don't even consider that in my definition. Go ahead and list the Cavs role players though because I have no idea how you can say they were inferior to the ones the Lakers have.
Chris Paul was definitely a top 7 player that year and you were one that brought that up as a criteria.
That "argument" wasn't even part of this thread's premise. It still is a rule. I have no idea where you're trying to go here since I already said that you found the exception.
You keep holding on to this argument that a team has to have this or that to qualify. I've already said there is no official qualification. Just said that when a team has the supposed GOAT AND a top 5 player, with insane depth comprised of good role players, a 6th man, and contributers that stretch all the way to the 11th spot on the roster, that is a good argument for a super team.
Also, don't get mad at me for something you stated. Just wondering if you realized how wrong you were on that argument of yours.