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

[killmongrel]

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.

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?

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.

[Dupp]

Green + Dwight + playoff ronda >>>> Schroeder and Marc




They desperately miss Greene’s spot up shooting, they have none.

[evilpimp972]

Bringing up playoffs Rondo in the regular season lmao

[AussieCeltic]

Who really cares what label you put on the team? It’s all semantics. Either way it’s a very good team from top to 9th-10th man. Whatever someone labels them shouldn’t really matter

[svart]

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.

Using this logic, the 2019 Warriors without Klay and KD was not a super-team either.

Brooklyn without kyrie and harden is not a super-team

You want me to continue?

[blackstar]

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.

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?

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.

How was I so wrong when you can only think of one example? It's like you're so glad to be right on something that you're dwelling on something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Just because the Lakers are well constructed doesn't make them a superteam. Depth has nothing to do with the definition of a superteam. Oh and btw, a 36 year old LBJ is definitely not the GOAT.

Was the Durant and Westbrook Thunder a superteam?

[blackstar]

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.

Using this logic, the 2019 Warriors without Klay and KD was not a super-team either.

Brooklyn without kyrie and harden is not a super-team

You want me to continue?

Read my post again and try again.

[killmongrel]

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.

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?

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.

How was I so wrong when you can only think of one example? It's like you're so glad to be right on something that you're dwelling on something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Just because the Lakers are well constructed doesn't make them a superteam. Depth has nothing to do with the definition of a superteam. Oh and btw, a 36 year old LBJ is definitely not the GOAT.

Was the Durant and Westbrook Thunder a superteam?

Again, you're saying it had nothing to do with the original argument yet you're the one who brought it up. Don't get mad at me that I refuted your claim.

And once again, there is no official qualification for a super team. But it can be argued that if a team has two super stars AND a roster that if full of good role players that equal to good depth, that makes for a good argument for a super team.

As for LBJ and this angle that he's now 36 year old, well, that 36 year old was leading in the MVP race in the opinions of a lot of people where one of the candidates, Curry, is having an amazing season as well with numbers that were close to his MVP years. So it's safe to say this 36 year old ain't exactly washed yet.

[Raps in 4]

Any team with 2 MVP-level players is a super team. Depth is meaningless in the NBA when you have elite top-end talent. If Lebron and AD are both healthy in the playoffs, the Lakers are sleepwalking to the finals again.

[Statlanta]

2 MVP level players and 2 in prime former 6MOY candidates and a former DPOY.

The Lakers are fine as long as they are healthy

[blackstar]

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?

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.

How was I so wrong when you can only think of one example? It's like you're so glad to be right on something that you're dwelling on something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Just because the Lakers are well constructed doesn't make them a superteam. Depth has nothing to do with the definition of a superteam. Oh and btw, a 36 year old LBJ is definitely not the GOAT.

Was the Durant and Westbrook Thunder a superteam?

Again, you're saying it had nothing to do with the original argument yet you're the one who brought it up. Don't get mad at me that I refuted your claim.

And once again, there is no official qualification for a super team. But it can be argued that if a team has two super stars AND a roster that if full of good role players that equal to good depth, that makes for a good argument for a super team.

As for LBJ and this angle that he's now 36 year old, well, that 36 year old was leading in the MVP race in the opinions of a lot of people where one of the candidates, Curry, is having an amazing season as well with numbers that were close to his MVP years. So it's safe to say this 36 year old ain't exactly washed yet.

Ever heard of the exception to the rule? Limits in math? Just because there's an exception doesn't make the rule wrong. Congrats though young blood, you must be patting yourself on the back. Btw, Jason Terry in my book was a star.

You said this iteration of LBJ was the GOAT. If he isn't then what validity is there to your argument? There have been tons of teams in the past with two superstars. The Thunder for instance.

[zimpy27]

They were never a superteam. Last season was the year of no superteams. We now have two superteams in the league

[svart]

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.

Using this logic, the 2019 Warriors without Klay and KD was not a super-team either.

Brooklyn without kyrie and harden is not a super-team

You want me to continue?

Read my post again and try again.

You should read your own.

You are mumbling about a team missing one star player, but you forgot to mention Schroeder.

Make up your mind.

[blackstar]

Using this logic, the 2019 Warriors without Klay and KD was not a super-team either.

Brooklyn without kyrie and harden is not a super-team

You want me to continue?

Read my post again and try again.

You should read your own.

You are mumbling about a team missing one star player, but you forgot to mention Schroeder.

Make up your mind.

Read my second and third posts.

[zimpy27]

Any team with 2 MVP-level players is a super team. Depth is meaningless in the NBA when you have elite top-end talent. If Lebron and AD are both healthy in the playoffs, the Lakers are sleepwalking to the finals again.

That's a big 2, something that has been around a long time. 90s and 00s were full of them and superteam came from big 3 era in 10s

Best rule of thumb for superteams is that it has to consist of either:
3 top 30 players,
4 top 40 players,
5 top 50 players,
6 top 60 players.

[killmongrel]

How was I so wrong when you can only think of one example? It's like you're so glad to be right on something that you're dwelling on something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Just because the Lakers are well constructed doesn't make them a superteam. Depth has nothing to do with the definition of a superteam. Oh and btw, a 36 year old LBJ is definitely not the GOAT.

Was the Durant and Westbrook Thunder a superteam?

Again, you're saying it had nothing to do with the original argument yet you're the one who brought it up. Don't get mad at me that I refuted your claim.

And once again, there is no official qualification for a super team. But it can be argued that if a team has two super stars AND a roster that if full of good role players that equal to good depth, that makes for a good argument for a super team.

As for LBJ and this angle that he's now 36 year old, well, that 36 year old was leading in the MVP race in the opinions of a lot of people where one of the candidates, Curry, is having an amazing season as well with numbers that were close to his MVP years. So it's safe to say this 36 year old ain't exactly washed yet.

Ever heard of the exception to the rule? Limits in math? Just because there's an exception doesn't make the rule wrong. Congrats though young blood, you must be patting yourself on the back. Btw, Jason Terry in my book was a star.

You said this iteration of LBJ was the GOAT. If he isn't then what validity is there to your argument? There have been tons of teams in the past with two superstars. The Thunder for instance.

You seem so butthurt that I refuted your claim. And yes, of course Jason Terry was a star. Right. Hehe.

Also, I didn't say this version of LBJ is as good as his younger self. Just saying that playing the 36 year old angle is kind of weak when he was/is leading the MVP race in a lot of people's opinions.

And if people want to make the argument that Thunder team was a super team, let them. I'd love to hear why. All I'm arguing is that this Lakers team is.

[bamheat]

Lebron never had a superteam. The only reason they were considered super was because of him.

[JN61]

Can we stop the narrative that LeBron is the best player in the basketball.... He can't carry a team anymore... He is probably still top 5 but that's it. He got comparable support last night from his team as Beal got. James just ultimately taking that many 3s and hurting his teams was reason they lost in the first place... Lakers had superior bench production to Wizards...

With LeBron it is always others. Not him... Stop it. Get help.

[killmongrel]

Any team with 2 MVP-level players is a super team. Depth is meaningless in the NBA when you have elite top-end talent. If Lebron and AD are both healthy in the playoffs, the Lakers are sleepwalking to the finals again.

That's a big 2, something that has been around a long time. 90s and 00s were full of them and superteam came from big 3 era in 10s

Best rule of thumb for superteams is that it has to consist of either:
3 top 30 players,
4 top 40 players,
5 top 50 players,
6 top 60 players.

[blackstar]

Again, you're saying it had nothing to do with the original argument yet you're the one who brought it up. Don't get mad at me that I refuted your claim.

And once again, there is no official qualification for a super team. But it can be argued that if a team has two super stars AND a roster that if full of good role players that equal to good depth, that makes for a good argument for a super team.

As for LBJ and this angle that he's now 36 year old, well, that 36 year old was leading in the MVP race in the opinions of a lot of people where one of the candidates, Curry, is having an amazing season as well with numbers that were close to his MVP years. So it's safe to say this 36 year old ain't exactly washed yet.

Ever heard of the exception to the rule? Limits in math? Just because there's an exception doesn't make the rule wrong. Congrats though young blood, you must be patting yourself on the back. Btw, Jason Terry in my book was a star.

You said this iteration of LBJ was the GOAT. If he isn't then what validity is there to your argument? There have been tons of teams in the past with two superstars. The Thunder for instance.

You seem so butthurt that I refuted your claim. And yes, of course Jason Terry was a star. Right. Hehe.

Also, I didn't say this version of LBJ is as good as his younger self. Just saying that playing the 36 year old angle is kind of weak when he was/is leading the MVP race in a lot of people's opinions.

And if people want to make the argument that Thunder team was a super team, let them. I'd love to hear why. All I'm arguing is that this Lakers team is.

Am I butthurt or are you just wanting to believe I am to make you feel good about yourself? How old are you, 20?

You don't get it. No one is saying the Thunder was a superteam, but according to your criteria, you should be.