Can we stop with the narrative that Lebron's Lakers are a superteam?

[killmongrel]

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.

Again, there is no qualification to how many super stars or stars a team needs before being called a super team. But to act like a team with two of the top 7 best current players in the league is not a super team, especially when one of those players are continually being hyped as the GOAT by his fans, is embarrassing. You don't need to prop LeBron by watering down the rest of his team. The arguments that this is a super team are more than valid. Again, this team has:

LeBron - super star
AD - super star
KCP - good role player
Alex Caruso - good role player
Wes Matthews - starter on one of the best teams in the East last season
Denis Schroeder - sought after pg and good role player
Kuzma - good role player
Morris - good role player
Harrell - 6th man winner
Gasol - starter

And then other players that can contribute like THT.

So how much more does this team need to be called a super team?

20+ teams would kill to have a super star on their team, forget about two, and that kind of depth. We're talking about role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals by the way.

[MindState]

A past his prime LeBron and a declining AD who cant stay healthy is definitely not a superteam. I dont think that narrative was ever a thing, even last year.

[Dutchball97]

Way to blow a fuse over the meaningless classification of superteam. So we should commend LeBron for only joining up with 1 other top 5 player on the biggest franchise in the league?

[killmongrel]

Way to blow a fuse over the meaningless classification of superteam. So we should commend LeBron for only joining up with 1 other top 5 player on the biggest franchise in the league?

Yeah, to a lot of these Bron fanboys teaming up with AD was not actually a big deal I suppose since the rest of the team are just G-Leaguers. I wonder how sorry his fans would feel for him if he just teamed up with a lower tier scrub like Damian Lillard or Paul George.

[DCasey91]

Fair is fair I don’t have a dog in the fight which way.

Lakers weren’t favorites last year. A lot of people were talking about the Clippers beating them.

Lebron too old, Davis always gets injured somehow.
They they won handily.

The great irony and paradox is that’s exactly what happened this year lol. Started favorites a lot of people thought the Lakers were gonna go back to back. East stinks no real threat etc etc.

I don’t how hard it is to play at an elite level at 36 at that weight/speed & playstyle and clock up all those minutes without some sort of respite.

News flash none of the goats of NBA could carry this team to a 1 seed/championship in its current iteration without Davis. Kareem had Magic and Jordan was retired.

They are extremely thin and quite old in some of the more important positions on the court.

Can’t have it both ways. What he is still able to do is phenomenal. We take it for granted/criticize/praise/lambast both his winning and his losing.

Can’t have it both ways.

The West is a bloodbath. And people had the nerve to say the Lakers wouldn’t have made the playoffs back when he finally had his first “real” injury years ago. That’s absurd. I’m pretty sure they were firmly in the playoffs when he got injured lol.

I’d say cut him some slack would be fair assumption.

[JoseRizal]

I guess it's unfair for LeBron to team up with a top 5 player in AD...

[blackstar]

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.

Again, there is no qualification to how many super stars or stars a team needs before being called a super team. But to act like a team with two of the top 7 best current players in the league is not a super team, especially when one of those players are continually being hyped as the GOAT by his fans, is embarrassing. You don't need to prop LeBron by watering down the rest of his team. The arguments that this is a super team are more than valid. Again, this team has:

LeBron - super star
AD - super star
KCP - good role player
Alex Caruso - good role player
Wes Matthews - starter on one of the best teams in the East last season
Denis Schroeder - sought after pg and good role player
Kuzma - good role player
Morris - good role player
Harrell - 6th man winner
Gasol - starter

And then other players that can contribute like THT.

So how much more does this team need to be called a super team?

20+ teams would kill to have a super star on their team, forget about two, and that kind of depth. We're talking about role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals by the way.

Again, you list a bunch of role players as if that has anything to do with the definition of a superteam. Take any of those teams I listed in my post and you can make a similar list. Nobody ever called them superteams.

Newsflash - you need 2 high level stars at least to win a title. That's the MINIMUM. That in no way or shape makes a team a superteam.

[Lalouie]

no one sane ever said this was a super team

[killmongrel]

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.

Again, there is no qualification to how many super stars or stars a team needs before being called a super team. But to act like a team with two of the top 7 best current players in the league is not a super team, especially when one of those players are continually being hyped as the GOAT by his fans, is embarrassing. You don't need to prop LeBron by watering down the rest of his team. The arguments that this is a super team are more than valid. Again, this team has:

LeBron - super star
AD - super star
KCP - good role player
Alex Caruso - good role player
Wes Matthews - starter on one of the best teams in the East last season
Denis Schroeder - sought after pg and good role player
Kuzma - good role player
Morris - good role player
Harrell - 6th man winner
Gasol - starter

And then other players that can contribute like THT.

So how much more does this team need to be called a super team?

20+ teams would kill to have a super star on their team, forget about two, and that kind of depth. We're talking about role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals by the way.

Again, you list a bunch of role players as if that has anything to do with the definition of a superteam. Take any of those teams I listed in my post and you can make a similar list. Nobody ever called them superteams.

Newsflash - you need 2 high level stars at least to win a title. That's the MINIMUM. That in no way or shape makes a team a superteam.

Newflash, you're talking about a team has a group of role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals. Just calling them role players is a bit understated. This Lakers team, when healthy has 2 of the best players in the league. Depth comprised of proven post season players. 6th man in Harrell. And good role players who had a great season last year like Schroeder. Again, what else does this team need to be a super team? A top 10 center? Chris Paul? It's embarrassing how the supposed GOAT, who is in the running for MVP this year, needs that much in addition so that the team he's currently on with another super star can be called a super team.

Also, the Mavs didn't need 2 high level stars to beat a super team in the Finals.

[blackstar]

Again, there is no qualification to how many super stars or stars a team needs before being called a super team. But to act like a team with two of the top 7 best current players in the league is not a super team, especially when one of those players are continually being hyped as the GOAT by his fans, is embarrassing. You don't need to prop LeBron by watering down the rest of his team. The arguments that this is a super team are more than valid. Again, this team has:

LeBron - super star
AD - super star
KCP - good role player
Alex Caruso - good role player
Wes Matthews - starter on one of the best teams in the East last season
Denis Schroeder - sought after pg and good role player
Kuzma - good role player
Morris - good role player
Harrell - 6th man winner
Gasol - starter

And then other players that can contribute like THT.

So how much more does this team need to be called a super team?

20+ teams would kill to have a super star on their team, forget about two, and that kind of depth. We're talking about role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals by the way.

Again, you list a bunch of role players as if that has anything to do with the definition of a superteam. Take any of those teams I listed in my post and you can make a similar list. Nobody ever called them superteams.

Newsflash - you need 2 high level stars at least to win a title. That's the MINIMUM. That in no way or shape makes a team a superteam.

Newflash, you're talking about a team has a group of role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals. Just calling them role players is a bit understated. This Lakers team, when healthy has 2 of the best players in the league. Depth comprised of proven post season players. 6th man in Harrell. And good role players who had a great season last year like Schroeder. Again, what else does this team need to be a super team? A top 10 center? Chris Paul? It's embarrassing how the supposed GOAT, who is in the running for MVP this year, needs that much in addition so that the team he's currently on with another super star can be called a super team.

And again, none of that makes them a superteam. Every, and I mean every, championship team has good role players to go along with at least two stars. You still haven't addressed how the teams I listed wouldn't be superteams using your criteria.

[killmongrel]

Again, you list a bunch of role players as if that has anything to do with the definition of a superteam. Take any of those teams I listed in my post and you can make a similar list. Nobody ever called them superteams.

Newsflash - you need 2 high level stars at least to win a title. That's the MINIMUM. That in no way or shape makes a team a superteam.

Newflash, you're talking about a team has a group of role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals. Just calling them role players is a bit understated. This Lakers team, when healthy has 2 of the best players in the league. Depth comprised of proven post season players. 6th man in Harrell. And good role players who had a great season last year like Schroeder. Again, what else does this team need to be a super team? A top 10 center? Chris Paul? It's embarrassing how the supposed GOAT, who is in the running for MVP this year, needs that much in addition so that the team he's currently on with another super star can be called a super team.

And again, none of that makes them a superteam. Every, and I mean every, championship team has good role players to go along with at least two stars. You still haven't addressed how the teams I listed wouldn't be superteams using your criteria.

If people want to call those super teams, then so be it. I am not knowledgeable enough of those eras, other than Harden and Chris Paul's Rockets, to figure out if those are super teams. The Rockets were not a super team by the way. I'm talking about this Lakers team because we're talking about a team with the supposed GOAT teaming up with another super star with a roster that is comprised of good role players and additions of Schroeder, Matthews, Gasol, and Harrell. It's silly to think that LeBron teaming up with two all stars is more akin to a super team than him teaming up with a possible top 5 player, especially when the team's depth is taken into account. So yeah, the Lakers for better or worse, is a super team. Doesn't mean they'll win the Finals. But they in my opinion, and many others', qualify as a super team.

By the way, did you address how the 2011 Mavs, with one high level star, beat a super team in the Finals?

[blackstar]

Newflash, you're talking about a team has a group of role players that played well in the playoffs and Finals. Just calling them role players is a bit understated. This Lakers team, when healthy has 2 of the best players in the league. Depth comprised of proven post season players. 6th man in Harrell. And good role players who had a great season last year like Schroeder. Again, what else does this team need to be a super team? A top 10 center? Chris Paul? It's embarrassing how the supposed GOAT, who is in the running for MVP this year, needs that much in addition so that the team he's currently on with another super star can be called a super team.

And again, none of that makes them a superteam. Every, and I mean every, championship team has good role players to go along with at least two stars. You still haven't addressed how the teams I listed wouldn't be superteams using your criteria.

If people want to call those super teams, then so be it. I am not knowledgeable enough of those eras, other than Harden and Chris Paul's Rockets, to figure out if those are super teams. The Rockets were not a super team by the way. I'm talking about this Lakers team because we're talking about a team with the supposed GOAT teaming up with another super star with a roster that is comprised of good role players and additions of Schroeder, Matthews, Gasol, and Harrell. It's silly to think that LeBron teaming up with two all stars is more akin to a super team than him teaming up with a possible top 5 player, especially when the team's depth is taken into account. So yeah, the Lakers for better or worse, is a super team. Doesn't mean they'll win the Finals. But they in my opinion, and many others', qualify as a super team.

By the way, did you address how the 2011 Mavs, with one high level star, beat a super team in the Finals?

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.

[blackstar]

Were the 7 seconds or less Suns a superteam?

[VanWest82]

Lakers are easily the most stacked team in the league. It’s not even close. No mention of Schroder being out of course. Yeah it’s harder to win games when your 2nd and 3rd best players are missing, especially in a condensed schedule when your best player is 36. Lakers are loaded with a nice mix of accomplished vets and young players.

OP reeks of excuse making so people can say Lebron carried an inferior roster when they inevitably win this year (because they’re stacked).

[killmongrel]

And again, none of that makes them a superteam. Every, and I mean every, championship team has good role players to go along with at least two stars. You still haven't addressed how the teams I listed wouldn't be superteams using your criteria.

If people want to call those super teams, then so be it. I am not knowledgeable enough of those eras, other than Harden and Chris Paul's Rockets, to figure out if those are super teams. The Rockets were not a super team by the way. I'm talking about this Lakers team because we're talking about a team with the supposed GOAT teaming up with another super star with a roster that is comprised of good role players and additions of Schroeder, Matthews, Gasol, and Harrell. It's silly to think that LeBron teaming up with two all stars is more akin to a super team than him teaming up with a possible top 5 player, especially when the team's depth is taken into account. So yeah, the Lakers for better or worse, is a super team. Doesn't mean they'll win the Finals. But they in my opinion, and many others', qualify as a super team.

By the way, did you address how the 2011 Mavs, with one high level star, beat a super team in the Finals?

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.

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.

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.

[blackstar]

Lakers are easily the most stacked team in the league. It’s not even close. No mention of Schroder being out of course. Yeah it’s harder to win games when your 2nd and 3rd best players are missing, especially in a condensed schedule. But Lakers are loaded with a nice mix of accomplished vets and young players.

OP reeks of excuse making so he can say Lebron carried an inferior roster when they inevitably win this year (because they’re stacked).

If you bothered reading my 2nd and 3rd posts, you would have seen that I mentioned Schroeder.

The Lakers are an elite team at full strength. That doesn't take away from my argument.

I'm not even a Lebron fan, lol. Go through my post history if you don't believe me. I'm just tired of people coming up with arbitrary criteria to discredit the guy.

[killmongrel]

Lakers are easily the most stacked team in the league. It’s not even close. No mention of Schroder being out of course. Yeah it’s harder to win games when your 2nd and 3rd best players are missing, especially in a condensed schedule. But Lakers are loaded with a nice mix of accomplished vets and young players.

OP reeks of excuse making so he can say Lebron carried an inferior roster when they inevitably win this year (because they’re stacked).

If you bothered reading my 2nd and 3rd posts, you would have seen that I mentioned Schroeder.

The Lakers are an elite team at full strength. That doesn't take away from my argument.

I'm not even a Lebron fan, lol. Go through my post history if you don't believe me. I'm just tired of people coming up with arbitrary criteria to discredit the guy.

Who was discrediting the guy? A lot of us are saying you can prop the guy up without purposely watering down the rest of his team.

[LOUiS-D]

As you all know Jonathan "Super" Team (Supe to his friends) is the authority for designating super team status. No team has ever been classified as such without his direct say so.

Supe says that the 20-21 Los Angeles Lakers are....... NOT a super team.

I personally don't agree with him. In my opinion the whole thing seems arbitrary and meaningless. After all It don't mean a thing without that ring. So... don't get angry with me, I'm just a messenger. His decision is final.

[blackstar]

If people want to call those super teams, then so be it. I am not knowledgeable enough of those eras, other than Harden and Chris Paul's Rockets, to figure out if those are super teams. The Rockets were not a super team by the way. I'm talking about this Lakers team because we're talking about a team with the supposed GOAT teaming up with another super star with a roster that is comprised of good role players and additions of Schroeder, Matthews, Gasol, and Harrell. It's silly to think that LeBron teaming up with two all stars is more akin to a super team than him teaming up with a possible top 5 player, especially when the team's depth is taken into account. So yeah, the Lakers for better or worse, is a super team. Doesn't mean they'll win the Finals. But they in my opinion, and many others', qualify as a super team.

By the way, did you address how the 2011 Mavs, with one high level star, beat a super team in the Finals?

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.

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.

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.

[blackstar]

Btw you must have really started watching basketball yesterday if you don't remember when Chris Paul was a superstar