RealGM

This narrative that Lebron is on a superteam with the Lakers has to stop. A superteam is not defined by a team having 2 superstars, there has to be a minimum of 3 high level stars/superstars. Lakers are 1-4 in their last 5 with AD out with losses to the Wizards, Nets without KD, the Heat and the Nuggets. If this was a superteam the loss of AD wouldn't leave the Lakers with Lebron and a bunch of role players, suddenly incapable of winning games. A superteam is able to take the loss of one of their stars and still win. The Nets are a superteam, so was the Heat, the Warriors, etc. The Celtics with KG, Pierce and Allen are not a superteam in my book because all 3 were past their peak.

This version of the Lakers is not.

Thank you. We weren’t last year either .

But Laker/Lebron fans told me Lebron + g-leaguers are contenders.

So which one is it? Before the season started, everyone was saying how Lakers got better because of who they signed. I even believed they were laughing at clippers for letting Harrell go to the Lakers and now he can’t even get minutes over washed up Gasol.

The narrative for lebron is always changing.

Oh, god, here we go with throwing the rest of the team under the bus just because LeBron is on a current losing streak without AD.

lmao like clockwork..lebron wins he's the GOAT & MVP baby and when HE loses the game its his team that sucks and were not a superteam..every year jfc

Who threw them under the bus? They have good role players, and yes they got better by adding Schroeder, who's also been out. One superstar and a bunch of role players doesn't get you anywhere in this league though. They are a middle of the pack team without AD and Schroeder and that's not throwing anyone under the bus.

It’s that time huh

What narrative?

A few people saying it doesn't equate to a narrative.

Blaze94 wrote:lmao like clockwork..lebron wins he's the GOAT & MVP baby and when HE loses the game its his team that sucks and were not a superteam..every year jfc

You guys are unbearable...I said the Lakers without AD (and Schroeder) were not an elite team, who said they sucked? As composed they're a mid to low playoff seed.

Like clockwork. Lebron need more help!!!

Of course this isn't a superteam

There are two top 7 guys

2 really nice 6MOTY candidates from last year

A couple decent role guys (AC and KCP...who is now overpaid)

And a ton of scrubs or very replaceable guys

A superteam is 3 all stars at minimum and a good bench

1960s celtics, 1980s lakers and celtics, and the KD warriors are the only superteams I can think of

BKN may be a supersteam

2 prime mvps, another very talented all star, a top 3 shooter in the league in Joe harris and some underrated role guys, but the bench still lacking overall

Yes, but the whole "Lebron is still in his prime" nonsense has to stop too. Just because he can still dunk at age 36 doesnt mean he is 2016 LBJ. He was worked on some of his flaws and he is probably the most skilled he has ever been, but, at this point, he is not carrying the load of guys like Lillard or Embiid or Trae Young etc. He is more like a rich mans 2012 paul pierce.

Time to other guys their due credit, instead artificially prolonging the lebron can carry scrubs narrative. At some point it will be the year 2035 and people will still insist that he is carrying his team, which will only make it look like drew gooden was the one carrying those Cavs teams.

AussieRules wrote:Like clockwork. Lebron need more help!!!

You guys are putting words in my mouth. Let me spell it out for you. Lebron with AD is an elite team. NOT a superteam. No, that doesn't mean Lebron needs more help. With AD, they are perfectly set up to win a title.

The loss of AD however, makes it obvious that they're not a superteam.

Are you just dense?

blackstar wrote:Who threw them under the bus? They have good role players, and yes they got better by adding Schroeder, who's also been out. One superstar and a bunch of role players doesn't get you anywhere in this league though. They are a middle of the pack team without AD and Schroeder and that's not throwing anyone under the bus.

There is no official qualification to what constitutes as a super team. But if you can argue that there are 7 players in the league that are considered the best(in no order): KD, Steph, LeBron, AD, Giannis, Harden, and Kawhi, then it's not far fetched to say that a team that has TWO of those players can safely be called a super team. How many teams in the league don't even have ONE super star? Do the Lakers need two super stars AND one elite player to be called a super team? Weren't Laker fans boasting about the team's depth just months ago? But now, outside of LeBron and AD, all of a sudden, it's actually not that great? Hehe.

When healthy, this Lakers team IS a super team. Two super stars. Good role players. A 6th man winner in Harrell. I mean, how, much more do they need to qualify as a super team?

blackstar wrote:

AussieRules wrote:Like clockwork. Lebron need more help!!!

You guys are putting words in my mouth. Let me spell it out for you. Lebron with AD is an elite team. NOT a superteam. No, that doesn't mean Lebron needs more help. With AD, they are perfectly set up to win a title.

The loss of AD however, makes it obvious that they're not a superteam.

Are you just dense?

Get yourself a sense of humour or get the f*** outta here. It’s not that serious dude. Don’t worry AD the real MVP of the team will be back soon, then my lakers can start winning again

lambchop wrote:Yes, but the whole "Lebron is still in his prime" nonsense has to stop too. Just because he can still dunk at age 36 doesnt mean he is 2016 LBJ. He was worked on some of his flaws and he is probably the most skilled he has ever been, but, at this point, he is not carrying the load of guys like Lillard or Embiid or Trae Young etc. He is more like a rich mans 2012 paul pierce.

Time to other guys their due credit, instead artificially prolonging the lebron can carry scrubs narrative. At some point it will be the year 2035 and people will still insist that he is carrying his team, which will only make it look like drew gooden was the one carrying those Cavs teams.

I think 2020 Lebron is clearly a prime Lebron.

You disagree?

killmongrel wrote:

blackstar wrote:Who threw them under the bus? They have good role players, and yes they got better by adding Schroeder, who's also been out. One superstar and a bunch of role players doesn't get you anywhere in this league though. They are a middle of the pack team without AD and Schroeder and that's not throwing anyone under the bus.

There is no official qualification to what constitutes as a super team. But if you can argue that there are 7 players in the league that are considered the best(in no order): KD, Steph, LeBron, AD, Giannis, Harden, and Kawhi, then it's not far fetched to say that a team that has TWO of those players can safely be called a super team. How many teams in the league don't even have ONE super star? Do the Lakers need two super stars AND one elite player to be called a super team? Weren't Laker fans boasting about the team's depth just months ago? But now, outside of LeBron and AD, all of a sudden, it's actually not that great? Hehe.

When healthy, this Lakers team IS a super team. Two super stars. Good role players. A 6th man winner in Harrell. I mean, how, much more do they need to qualify as a super team?

Were the Shaq and Kobe Lakers a super team?
Harden and Chris Paul?
Duncan and Robinson?
Hakeem and Drexler?
Pippen and MJ?
Malone and Stockton?
Payton and Kemp?
Dirk, Nash and Finley?

Nobody called those teams superteams. Nobody talked about superteams until the Heat was formed (although there were superteams before that in the 80s Celtics and Lakers). Now all of a sudden we're expanding the definition to 2 high level stars?

Oh and every championship team needs good role players to win. That has no influence on the definition of a superteam.

Fear not the calvary is coming! Boogie Cousins will be a Laker soon.

Ballerhogger wrote:Thank you. We weren’t last year either .

Is it all relative? Last year the Lakeshow were the only team with two NBA first teamers.

Or is it strictly 3+ stars?

RB34 wrote:
Is it all relative? Last year the Lakeshow were the only team with two NBA first teamers.

That doesn't make a team a superteam.

RB34 wrote:Or is it strictly 3+ stars?

Yes, and at least 2 have to be superstars with the 3rd a perennial all-star.