Series Thread: NBA Finals: Warriors vs Cavaliers

[bksballer89]

Its hard for me to have Wade the superstar level during the James years here.
Maybe years 1-2, but by 3-4 it was more all star IMO.

Totally agree.

@tlance let's all agree the Heat were a super team in years 1 & 2 of the big 3 BUT if you think they were a super team in years 3 & 4 then how are the Cavs now not a super team? Kyrie IMO is better than what Wade was in 2013 and 2014. Bosh and Love are basically the same type of player. Only difference being Bosh was a better defensive player especially in the P&R than Love.

So what is it? Were the Heat a super team for just 2 years or all 4 years. If in your opinion the Heat were a super team for those 2 years then I'll totally understand why from your point of view you don't consider the Cavs a super team.

 

[Heatles84]

Again though, this term is being tossed around way too frequently. Just like with the term superstar. People on these threads have mentioned guys like Isaiah Thomas and Demar DeRozan as being superstars. They are not.

I remember discussion on message boards when the Nets made their move. Nobody thought they were a superteam except for Nets brass. Some believed they could challenge the Heat (I didn't), but nobody thought they were a superteam.

The very first time I ever heard the word "superteam" was when LBJ, Wade and Bosh came together in '09. It was an unprecedented move where 2 truly elite players combined with a 3rd all star.

While the term was never applied to them at the time, the only other team I can think of that meets this definition from the modern era was the Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers. However, now the term gets loosely applied to any team that throws together a bunch of big names. I do not agree with that.

Of course the Cavs are trying to make their team the best it can possibly be, just like every contender ever. They have done a good job assembling pieces and they are a great team with a very good big 3. What holds them back, IMO is that Kyrie is not a superstar.

But again, that is my definition. And again, it isn't wrong. Based on the origin of the term, these are the 3 superteams that nobody an argue with:

80s Lakers
LeBron Heat
Current Warriors

People who add a bunch more to the list are making the same mistake as those who too casually toss around the term superstar. The Cavs are close, but they do not meet my criteria. It takes a truly special group.

I was using the Nets in conjunction with why their salary was so high during Lebron's years. Anyone with two functioning brain cells knew that collective wasn't going to get it done.

Wade at the time of Lebron's arrival was considered to equal him in terms of talent (people debated for a year who was the actual better player). But after year 1, we saw Wade's health and play start to diminish (part of which was giving up the reins to Lebron).

During Lebron's time in Miami, Wade was not consistently the Wade of old. Wade's most productive year was Lebron's first year in Miami where we starting Bibby and Big Z at the 1 and 5 - and had zero bench with the exception of UD and Chalmers (Miller was often injured).

I've never once called IT and Rozan super stars. They're both lacking in several aspects and at best will be 2nd tier all stars. Again, if you consider Miami (and its collection of parts) a super team when Lebron came to Miami, then Cleveland with the amount of salary they have (adding guys like Williams and Bogut - the latter of which played less than a minute before getting injured) for next to nothing, then they fit the script of super team. How else would you explain their dominance through the East.

 

[Heatles84]

Totally agree.

@tlance let's all agree the Heat were a super team in years 1 & 2 of the big 3 BUT if you think they were a super team in years 3 & 4 then how are the Cavs now not a super team? Kyrie IMO is better than what Wade was in 2013 and 2014. Bosh and Love are basically the same type of player. Only difference being Bosh was a better defensive player especially in the P&R than Love.

So what is it? Were the Heat a super team for just 2 years or all 4 years. If in your opinion the Heat were a super team for those 2 years then I'll totally understand why from your point of view you don't consider the Cavs a super team.

I could only say year 2. In year 1 we had shit for a bench. We had UD and Chalmers. Mike Miller was injured throughout his entire tenure in Miami. Which makes it laughable why some criticized the Heat for making that move and the consequences of his salary in relation to the luxury tax.

 

[LogicMan]

The Cavs right now arent a super team.

 

[bksballer89]

I could only say year 2. In year 1 we had shit for a bench. We had UD and Chalmers. Mike Miller was injured throughout his entire tenure in Miami. Which makes it laughable why some criticized the Heat for making that move and the consequences of his salary in relation to the luxury tax.

I think being a super team does not have anything to do with the other players. It's more about your top 3 or 4 players so considering Wade & James were both top 5 players in 2011 while CB was top 15 or so. I'll still say it was a super team in 2011 even though the rest of the roster was ass.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think being a super team does not have anything to do with the other players. It's more about your top 3 or 4 players so considering Wade & James were both top 5 players in 2011 while CB was top 15 or so. I'll still say it was a super team in 2011 even though the rest of the roster was ass.

Agree. If you have 3 or 4 guys at that level, you're a superteam.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Again though, this term is being tossed around way too frequently. Just like with the term superstar. People on these threads have mentioned guys like Isaiah Thomas and Demar DeRozan as being superstars. They are not.

I remember discussion on message boards when the Nets made their move. Nobody thought they were a superteam except for Nets brass. Some believed they could challenge the Heat (I didn't), but nobody thought they were a superteam.

The very first time I ever heard the word "superteam" was when LBJ, Wade and Bosh came together in '09. It was an unprecedented move where 2 truly elite players combined with a 3rd all star.

While the term was never applied to them at the time, the only other team I can think of that meets this definition from the modern era was the Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers. However, now the term gets loosely applied to any team that throws together a bunch of big names. I do not agree with that.

Of course the Cavs are trying to make their team the best it can possibly be, just like every contender ever. They have done a good job assembling pieces and they are a great team with a very good big 3. What holds them back, IMO is that Kyrie is not a superstar.

But again, that is my definition. And again, it isn't wrong. Based on the origin of the term, these are the 3 superteams that nobody an argue with:

80s Lakers
LeBron Heat
Current Warriors

People who add a bunch more to the list are making the same mistake as those who too casually toss around the term superstar. The Cavs are close, but they do not meet my criteria. It takes a truly special group.

Great post man. I also think the term is used loosely and it was a good comparison to the term superstar. If we call this Cavs team a superteam than how many superteams have we had in the history of the league. A lot.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Come on, man! Even you can't believe that.

You really believe those Rockets teams are better than the Warriors Lmao. This isnt about them playing each other bc Hakeem would torch the Warriors, nobody to guard him but the Warriors are one of the best offensive and defensive teams to be in the league EVER. Times have changed, they just have too many shooters and two-way guys.

 

[trojanfan12]

You really believe those Rockets teams are better than the Warriors Lmao. This isnt about them playing each other bc Hakeem would torch the Warriors, nobody to guard him but the Warriors are one of the best offensive and defensive teams to be in the league EVER. Times have changed, they just have too many shooters and two-way guys.

I don't know about better, but they were built in a way that could be a real match up problem for the Warriors. Aside from the fact that they had Hakeem who would exploit the Warriors in the middle where they are weakest, they were also very good at defending the perimeter. Those are 2 of the key ingredients to beating the Warriors.

I think the Warriors would probably ultimately win the series, but those Rockets teams would have given them all they could handle and then some.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

You really believe those Rockets teams are better than the Warriors Lmao. This isnt about them playing each other bc Hakeem would torch the Warriors, nobody to guard him but the Warriors are one of the best offensive and defensive teams to be in the league EVER. Times have changed, they just have too many shooters and two-way guys.

No, the facepalm was because of this:

Only the Bulls compare to the elite teams in this era.

 

[WiggyRuss]

ESPN's Jeff Van Gundy, when asked if rest in the regular season is what allowed the Cavaliers to reach another level in the postseason, said: "Talent is what allowed them to flip the switch. We would all hope as coaches that very few teams are capable of doing what Cleveland has done in that flipping of the switch. ... What this shows me is some teams are so ultra-talented that they can shortchange themselves in the regular season, flip the switch, and still get back to where they wanted to be, which is the Finals."

 

[Black Adam]

if the Cavs lose: "they had a superteam, we didn't. unfair. (fill in a bunch of excuses)"

if the Cavs win: "WOW, we KNEW we were better, and LeClown is a god".-Cavs fans


ultimate edition of wanting to have it both ways...

 

[Shanemansj13]

if the Cavs lose: "they had a superteam, we didn't. unfair. (fill in a bunch of excuses)"

if the Cavs win: "WOW, we KNEW we were better, and LeClown is a god".-Cavs fans


ultimate edition of wanting to have it both ways...

Who is disagreeing it isnt title or bust? They are still defending champs, of course they need to win a title. But the same people that said Kyrie and Love werent top players are now saying they are a superteam. The Warriors have 93% chance of winning this series. The Cavs are still facing great odds regardless if they dont win it will be a failure. You have to take that into consideration. It's just the way it is. Either way, KD is gonna chioke so you wont have to worry you can just yourself to sleep CL lol

 

[CitySushi]

many of the same people who said Kyrie was not even a top 6-7 point guard are now trying to say the Cavs are a super team.

Point guard is the deepest position in the league by far. Just because you aren't a "top 6-7" point guard, doesn't mean you're still not one of the best players in the NBA.

For example if you're the 7th best point guard in the NBA are you better than say the 4th best shooting guard in the NBA? Or the 3rd best Center? etc, etc.

Stop trying to fit this in your narrative. Just because you consider a player not to be a top 5-6 player at his position, does not devalue the player as a whole. It's just a matter of who you prefer better. If you're doing a top 25 player ranking in the NBA, Kyrie is easily on this list, even if he's not in the top 5 at his position.

 

[msgkings322]

many of the same people who said Kyrie was not even a top 6-7 point guard are now trying to say the Cavs are a super team.

I mean- at least try not to embarass yourself by totally contradicting yourself.

I cant say whether the Cavs are a super team or not until there is an actual definition of what a "super team" is.

Is it a collection of names? A collection of top 20 guys? A collection of guys that were or used to be all stars or all nba players? Is a team a super team because of their record?

is whereever LeBron plays a super team because he is just that good? Was OKC a super team with RW, Durant and Ibaka (when Ibaka was really good).

Until there is an actual definition that you can declare and a set of criteria- people will just continue to run their mouths and contradict themselves.

Running their mouths is called arguing about sports which is exactly why we are all here.

There is no "definition" of "Superteam" it means whatever the speaker says it means to him. Like MVP or GOAT there's no strict definition. Most fans have fun arguing about it and taking a position. You don't because you are a lawyer who believes what he is paid to believe

 

[LogicMan]

Sushi your most interesting point is just how much this league needs/values/works through players who can act like guards in these motion offenses. I could imagine someone suggesting that of all 5 positions that guards make up 30 to 40% of the best players

 

[LogicMan]

Meaning just the point guard, not even considering the shooting guard

 

[CitySushi]

Sushi your most interesting point is just how much this league needs/values/works through players who can act like guards in these motion offenses. I could imagine someone suggesting that of all 5 positions that guards make up 30 to 40% of the best players

Yeah I could easily see this. But also the talent level has never been greater at the Point Guard position. For the shooting guards, that's probably another story though, so I think the balance between those positions kind of evens it out. If you made a list of the top 25 players, I could see 8 of them being point guards.

 

[LogicMan]

NBA Position Power Rankings, End of Regular Season Edition: Point Guards

I agree with your comment after reading this

 

[Mecca]

@trojanfan12 , went to my first WNBA game of the Season and the Mercury beat the Wings by fucking 40...lol

Oh well, we got a free tshirt, bobble head and Carl's Jr. Burger.

So, for $11.00 a ticket, it was worth it to get out of the Arizona heat.