Has OKC changed the game?

[dream_catcher_9]

Who knows if this is successful long term, but since we have the #1 ranked offense I figure id throw this out there. I've been thinking about this roster for awhile and I came to the conclusion that we have 3 elite shooting guards on our team, and all 3 play together in crunch time.

Russell Westbrook is our PG, but in terms of playing style he more resembles a great SG. James Harden has more passing skills but in terms of body and game he still has scoring instincts. Kevin Durant is 6'11" but he also plays like a SG.

We don't have a true Point like Rondo or Rubio, but is that in actuality helping us because today's game prevents hand checking? With a pure point they would help the flow of the game go a bit smoother, but they would hurt you because they don't have great penetrating and scoring abilities. Today's game is all about penetration and scoring, if you can do that you are golden.

If you could somehow get all 3 of your scoring wing players to buy into a system and learn to play together and become unselfish then you just trumped a team with a pure point guard.

thoughts?

[bbms]

No... I think we win because we simply have more talent and fit than anyone in the league. It doesn't look like a "plan".

[theokie]

Haven't won anything yet. Can't "change the game" without accomplishing anything

[BirdmanPresents]

No. They are a good example of how to do a good rebuild and build value in your players. But like above said, they haven't accomplished anything great yet.

[benjamink15]

Who knows if this is successful long term, but since we have the #1 ranked offense I figure id throw this out there. I've been thinking about this roster for awhile and I came to the conclusion that we have 3 elite shooting guards on our team, and all 3 play together in crunch time.

Russell Westbrook is our PG, but in terms of playing style he more resembles a great SG. James Harden has more passing skills but in terms of body and game he still has scoring instincts. Kevin Durant is 6'11" but he also plays like a SG.

We don't have a true Point like Rondo or Rubio, but is that in actuality helping us because today's game prevents hand checking? With a pure point they would help the flow of the game go a bit smoother, but they would hurt you because they don't have great penetrating and scoring abilities. Today's game is all about penetration and scoring, if you can do that you are golden.

If you could somehow get all 3 of your scoring wing players to buy into a system and learn to play together and become unselfish then you just trumped a team with a pure point guard.

thoughts?

Every team in the league enjoys lots of 'scoring' and 'penetration'. This is not exclusive to the Thunder.

I think the point you're trying to make is that players that can penetrate effectively have a big impact on the game. The Thunder happen to have 3 of those guys!

[dream_catcher_9]

my point was that having 3 of them on the floor at the same time is it better or worse than having a traditional lineup?

for example, would you rather have a PG/SG/SF traditional lineup, or a SG/SG/SG lineup like we have?

[theokie]

my point was that having 3 of them on the floor at the same time is it better or worse than having a traditional lineup?

for example, would you rather have a PG/SG/SF traditional lineup, or a SG/SG/SG lineup like we have?

Those are just labels that really have no particular meaning, and a lot of times are interchangeable. Regardless Durant is more of SF than he is a SG, and probably close to a PF than a SG.

You could argue that a lineup that the Heat throws out there is SG/SG/SG too, or hell even PG/PG/PG.

Were not the first team by a long shot that has had a combo/score first PG that could be labeled as a SG. Which could then arguably throw out a SG/SG/SG lineup.

Rose, Arenas, Iverson, etc..

[jambalaya]

Arguably the 90s Bulls often played with 3 SGs (loosely defined). Kerr, Harper, Paxson were all about 50% SG or more. Pippen had SG handles. It worked for them but they managed to have better perimeter defense and better overall defense, in part because they all bought into playing defense hard all the time and that can't be said of the Thunder perimeter. They usually play defense hard when they feel they need to and not a lot otherwise.

Other title winners including the 90s Rockets and 2005 Pistons and some of the Spurs teams all had 3 dribble & pass capable perimeter guys including the guy playing SF much of the time. Last year's Mavs too. It is not that rare if the definition of SG or SG-like is loose.

[wiff]

Haven't won anything yet. Can't "change the game" without accomplishing anything

+1

Last time my favorite basketball team was this good this happened...


They haven't changed sh!!t because they haven't done sh!!t.

[sonictecture]

I don't believe you have to win a championship to, "change the game".

I think what Presti has done is changing the way owners want to run their franchises. I'll give plenty of credit to the Spurs organization for helping make Presti what he is, but I also believe Presti has adapted and molded the Spurs blue print into his own creation. Presti deserves full credit for his accomplishments to date.

You have one of the documented worst owners in the game giving power to a former Presti disciple to turn his franchise around in Charlotte. It is my belief that Cho is just the first of many such examples we will see.

[IMAN5]

You guys have changed the game in a much different way.

Unselfish players, a true brotherhood, growing together, playing in a city that (no offense) isn't one of the major nba cities like CHI, NY, LA.

It's so refreshing to see. A lot of credit goes to Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Green when he was in OKC. They created a system to play together. Something that Perk and Fisher and many others have and will buy into.

As a Raptors/Knicks fan, I truly hope OKC wins it all this year.

[wiff]

I don't believe you have to win a championship to, "change the game".

I think what Presti has done is changing the way owners want to run their franchises. I'll give plenty of credit to the Spurs organization for helping make Presti what he is, but I also believe Presti has adapted and molded the Spurs blue print into his own creation.Presti deserves full credit for his accomplishments to date.

Really you think we'd be talking about OKC changing the game if Pritchard would have been smart enough to draft Durant and not Oden? And before you start to say everyone would have drafted Oden I made a thread long before the Sonics won the lottery saying I would have drafted Durant over Oden. So not everyone would have drafted Oden. You have been around longer than me in this place so I think it's likely you remember the thread.

What kind of genius is it to take the next best available player? Look don't get me wrong but lets be real here. Presti did a great job with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. Heck I even like what he did to acquire Ibaka by the sign and trade with Rashard Lewis to Orlando. I actually think two of his best moves were acquiring Thabo and re-signing Collison on a heavily front load contract, to where now he is practically play for peanuts.

Presti has made some great moves but Durant (quite possibly the MVP) was a gift. That was a no brainer.

Without Durant OKC is probably a playoff team but probably not a championship contender just yet.

And speaking of contenders did Phoenix change the game? Did the Kings change the game? Did the Knicks change the game?

The only thing that matters is the ring. That's why 29 teams this year will fail. So no nothing has changed until a banner drops that says champs.

[sonictecture]

I don't believe you have to win a championship to, "change the game".

I think what Presti has done is changing the way owners want to run their franchises. I'll give plenty of credit to the Spurs organization for helping make Presti what he is, but I also believe Presti has adapted and molded the Spurs blue print into his own creation.Presti deserves full credit for his accomplishments to date.

Really you think we'd be talking about OKC changing the game if Pritchard would have been smart enough to draft Durant and not Oden? And before you start to say everyone would have drafted Oden I made a thread long before the Sonics won the lottery saying I would have drafted Durant over Oden. So not everyone would have drafted Oden. You have been around longer than me in this place so I think it's likely you remember the thread.

What kind of genius is it to take the next best available player? Look don't get me wrong but lets be real here. Presti did a great job with Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. Heck I even like what he did to acquire Ibaka by the sign and trade with Rashard Lewis to Orlando. I actually think two of his best moves were acquiring Thabo and re-signing Collison on a heavily front load contract, to where now he is practically play for peanuts.


Presti has made some great moves but Durant (quite possibly the MVP) was a gift. That was a no brainer.

Without Durant OKC is probably a playoff team but probably not a championship contender just yet.

Do you want to discuss what might have happened in a parallel universe where Presti doesn't have the opportunity to draft Durant or do you want to discuss the reality where Presti drafted Durant and surrounded him with a team that is envied by every other organization in the league?

I'm only willing to discuss the reality situation.

And speaking of contenders did Phoenix change the game? Did the Kings change the game? Did the Knicks change the game?

The reason that Presti changed the game is that he built this team in a method that every other team can follow if they choose.

Presti's formula is weighted to players with good characters and solid work ethics, the players he drafted haven't always been considered the best available talent on draft day. People forget that now that Durant is no longer considered too weak physically or just a jump shooter, that Westbrook is no longer merely a scoring guard in a point guards body, that Harden is no longer a guy unwilling to step up under pressure.

Take Durant, Westbrook or Harden or all three out of the equation if you want, the formula developed by Presti still works, just with different parts. Take Presti's formula away and you go back to what we watched for decades, where luck really is all you can rely on.

The formula doesn't just rely on luck of drafting a certain player. It is a system in which you draft the best player for your system and then spend significant resources to develop that player as part of something bigger, a team. It seems simple, perhaps even what teams have been doing for decades, this is the genius of the system and why it is changing the game.

The only thing that matters is the ring. That's why 29 teams this year will fail. So no nothing has changed until a banner drops that says champs.

This is a worn out cliche perpetrated by the media to hype various contests for rating purposes. The ring is the thing that matters the least. It is the story of the journey that is most important.

Basketball is not a business its a life. It's a story of a group of people that come together for a journey with a beginning and and end. It's what happens in between the beginning and the end that really matters. Winning a ring or not winning a ring is merely part of the conclusion of a season, it means nothing more.

[JustAwesome]

I think the players view the championship ring a little more than that.

[wiff]

The reason that Presti changed the game is that he built this team in a method that every other team can follow if they choose.

No they can't....... guys like Durant are not always sitting there when they draft.

How many impact players like Durant are there in the league? Not every team has a chance to draft a guy like Durant.

And in "reality" Pritchard made Presti's life a heck of a lot easier. Otherwise the organization would have been playing the wait and see game with Oden.

I'm not saying Presti hasn't played the hand he was dealt superbly but when you are dealt 21 because the guy before you split two tens, how much credit can you really take?

[sonictecture]

I think the players view the championship ring a little more than that.

The ring is a false validation to a career and a life. It's a buzz word that is suppose to signify how committed they are to winning and team, when in reality those commitments are made when no one is asking or looking.

The players who attempted to do their best and lived in the moment of their careers are not less as people or players because they never won a ring in the eyes of the people that they shared their journey with. The ring is a made up designation of importance, a marketing device.

I think if you had an opportunity to have a one on one conversation with a player that they would admit that winning a ring isn't what matters most in their careers.

[wiff]

I think if you had an opportunity to have a one on one conversation with a player that they would admit that winning a ring isn't what matters most in their careers.

Say the players that never won one.

Ask a player who won one how much the ring means to them and their careers.

I don't get your logic. I know the saying goes "It's not about who wins and loses, but about how you played the game". That statement originated by people who don't win and wanted to make themselves feel good.

You know what cures everything?








































Good sportsmanship doesn't sell tickets nor does it get you in the hall of fame. Winning does. Especially winning rings.

[sonictecture]

The reason that Presti changed the game is that he built this team in a method that every other team can follow if they choose.

No they can't....... guys like Durant are not always sitting there when they draft.

How many impact players like Durant are there in the league? Not every team has a chance to draft a guy like Durant.

And in "reality" Pritchard made Presti's life a heck of a lot easier. Otherwise the organization would have been playing the wait and see game with Oden.

I'm not saying Presti hasn't played the hand he was dealt superbly but when you are dealt 21 because the guy before you split two tens, how much credit can you really take?

Presti's system of team building is not centered around being able to draft a Kevin Durant. There are impact players in every draft.

Having Durant on the team is special and in many ways he probably makes building a team easier for Presti, but the system is sound with or without Durant.

The system can be duplicated because every team can build through the draft. Not every team can lure the best free agents or trade for the most talented players, but every team can be bad enough to get into the draft lottery, attempt to set up a similar culture, look to identify talented players with character and work ethic over perceived talent or college production. Every team can allow their draft picks to develop through playing time at the expense of winning in the short term. Every team can target value role players before the talent core is in place.

I'm keenly watching Rich Cho and the Charlotte Bobcats.

[sonictecture]

I think if you had an opportunity to have a one on one conversation with a player that they would admit that winning a ring isn't what matters most in their careers.

Say the players that never won one.

Ask a player who won one how much the ring means to them and their careers.

It's a false validation, similar to money buys happiness. We read stories like Antoine Walker, who sold his ring to pay off debtors all of the time. Ron Artest auctioned his ring away for charity, Mark Cuban didn't want to give rings to the players because he thought the symbol wasn't meaningful enough. Players typically keep their rings in safety deposit boxes or give them away to family members recognizing that the ring is just a symbol of the success of the journey.

When players get back together and talk about their careers I imagine they spend very little time talking about rings, instead they talk about experiences that happened during the shared journey of their careers.

I don't get your logic. I know the saying goes "It's not about who wins and loses, but about how you played the game". That statement originated by people who don't win and wanted to make themselves feel good.

You know what cures everything?

Good sportsmanship doesn't sell tickets nor does it get you in the hall of fame. Winning does. Especially winning rings.

I'm not denying that you and others don't buy into the "rings" validation of one's career or life, but I am stating that it's not really a true measure of success. There are a good numbers of teams that experience "winning" without the rings. I'm fine with winning basketball, I much prefer to watch and follow winning basketball, but I could care less about rings.

There are many more players in the HOF without championship rings than with them. Winning and losing doesn't seem to have much to do with ticket sales either. Your simply spouting cliches that you've heard for years.

[wiff]

I think if you had an opportunity to have a one on one conversation with a player that they would admit that winning a ring isn't what matters most in their careers.

Say the players that never won one.

Ask a player who won one how much the ring means to them and their careers.

It's a false validation, similar to money buys happiness. We read stories like Antoine Walker, who sold his ring to pay off debtors all of the time. Ron Artest auctioned his ring away for charity, Mark Cuban didn't want to give rings to the players because he thought the symbol wasn't meaningful enough. Players typically keep their rings in safety deposit boxes or give them away to family members recognizing that the ring is just a symbol of the success of the journey.

When players get back together and talk about their careers I imagine they spend very little time talking about rings, instead they talk about experiences that happened during the shared journey of their careers.

It's not the actual ring itself it's the winning the championship. The ring just comes with the championship.

I couldn't care less if it was a dog collar. It's the being the best team in the league that year and proving it.

Right now OKC hasn't proved anything except they can win in the regular season and they don't even have the leagues best record.

Even if they win a title they still haven't changed the game. Last time I looked the second three peat of the Bulls was very perimeter oriented offensively.