Ice Man wrote:The OKC situation explains why there will be more superteams in the future. Fans say that is a bad thing, but then they praise players who join strong teams for being "winners," and they pick at the guys who are loyal and stay on weaker teams for being losers. Durant will have his ring, and Westbrook is just some guy with gaudy stats who doesn't know how to win. That is the narrative.
Hey, I think it's a terrible narrative and dead wrong. So I have the right to decry superteams. But those who buy into the notion that players are better because their teams win, never mind what their teammates do, well sorry you don't get to say that the Heatles and Golden State are bad things. You enable those teams. You support their formation.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Watching OKC is boring....it is too much like AAU basketball where one player dominates too much. It is just not a logical formula for success. It is too much on one player like Westbrook. And, he takes others out of rhythm even with all his assists. It just doesn't work even with his individual success. I am not a fan of OKC's offensive style. You see all their 3 pt shooters were cold most of the time...not just McDermott but Abrines, Oladipo too. You can't saying every other NBA player sucks.
I would say Harden or Durant alone instead of Westbrook with the same OKC cast would do a lot better because they are just better shooters than Russ. I admire Westbrook but he needs a real fine-tuned cast around him and even a single mistake in the supporting cast can disrupt everything, IMO.
If they had all(Durant, Harden, Westbrook), they could probably overcome any problem with just the talent like the Heatles.
People say Harden plays the point but who is guarding Westbrook? A top defender in Beverley. Harden takes it easy on defense guarding somebody like Roberson. Meanwhile, Westbrook has to guard Beverly who is shooting lights out from the 3 pt line and moves without the ball on offense.












