knowyourenemy
Well-Known Member
That doesn't make any sense. Would you have passed on Durant? Prior to signing with GSW -- he'd won nothing.
The NBA has changed -- if you don't have AT LEAST two stars on your team, you aren't winning anything. If you don't have at least three stars on your team, your odds of winning a NBA title is very low.
Hell -- I posted this in another thread -- since 1980, every NBA champion has had a past, present or future MVP on the team, but Detroit in 89, Detroit in 90 and Detroit in '04. Paul George is a great player, but he isn't on the same level as the Lebron's, Durant's, Curry, etc. He needs other stars to team up with him if he wants a chance to make a run at a title.
To an extent, I agree with Dorian (which I'm a bit ashamed to admit, because he's got some pretty ridiculous viewpoints).
Paul George is very much overrated -- but that doesn't mean he isn't a very good player and it doesn't mean he couldn't be the perfect player to complement the remainder of the Celtics roster. If Boston were to put together a roster with Horford/Hayward/George and some combination of their existing guards, they'd be a really tough team to beat. Sure, they likely would not surpass Golden State but I'd give them a chance to topple Cleveland. And if Golden State has an injury or something go wrong or some rapid decline by one of its players that no one could have expected, Boston could possibly pull a championship out.
Back to him being overrated, I pretty consistently see him ranked in the 6-10 range in the NBA and I think he's really in the 16-25 range.