The Cavs without Lebron

[True Lakers Fan]

Just saying. How can a team be considered a 'super team' when it heavily relies on one single player?

They don't have to be a super team to win a championship. Regardless of their status in the space time continuum, they are the NBA champions. I don't think you can judge a team based on a few losses during the year and in this case, the games where LeBron rested, it was on the second night of a back to back. I counted up the wins and losses for teams on back to backs one year and it was pretty high which is the reason coaches like Popovich started sending his players home. He basically to the NBA to fuck themselves because they were going to lose any way.

 

[Kold]

I grew up watching basketball in the late 80s and 90s. None of those teams the Bulls faced were great. The Lakers were at the tail end of their dynasty run and IMO were the best of the group.

The other teams (Suns, Blazers, Jazz) were good basketball teams, but not great by any stretch. They had quality pieces and played well together. Still, if you compare rosters of any of those teams with the Warriors or Spurs that LeBron has faced the last 4 years, they come up far short. IronicAlly, OKC might have been more talented than any of those teams, but they lacked the experience necessary to beat Miami.

Further supporting my point, the Rockets who won in the two years Jordan was away were arguably the weakest championship team of the last 30 years. Hakeem was nasty, but the overall team was not on the level of current or past NBA champions.

In the 90s, the top talents were spread throughout the league more so than any other era. That began to change as free agency evolved after the Bulls run was finished.

Ehh, I agree with some things there, and I guess I should clarify and say that they may not be all time great, but they were definitely amongst the greatest of that era, and were deeper than the Bulls were, but having Jordan tended to cancel out a lot of things for other teams. However by that same token, the East was more competitive for Jordan than it was Lebron. Also comparing rosters, Lebron's supporting cast for his first title surpassed any of Jordan's first three years for sure. Even thinking to those last 3 years, the Bulls 3rd best player was Toni Kukoc. Also to your point about the 90's, those Bulls teams also weren't deep on talent as opposed to having a cast of niche players to could play their roles well

 

[tlance]

Ehh, I agree with some things there, and I guess I should clarify and say that they may not be all time great, but they were definitely amongst the greatest of that era, and were deeper than the Bulls were, but having Jordan tended to cancel out a lot of things for other teams. However by that same token, the East was more competitive for Jordan than it was Lebron. Also comparing rosters, Lebron's supporting cast for his first title surpassed any of Jordan's first three years for sure. Even thinking to those last 3 years, the Bulls 3rd best player was Toni Kukoc. Also to your point about the 90's, those Bulls teams also weren't deep on talent as opposed to having a cast of niche players to could play their roles well

Maybe,

But what many interpret as Jordan just being better than everybody else (I agree that he was)
a large portion of the Bulls' success was due to the rest of the league not being great. Sure, the Knicks and Pacers could beat them up, but they were not winning the series. I think the Magic could have been a legitimate peer if Penny stayed healthy and Shaq resigned, but it didn't happen.

Also, those Bulls teams were awesome. Horace Grant was an all star caliber player. Paxson and BJ Armstrong provided shooting and strong guard play. Cartwright was a seasoned vet who was an all star caliber player in his own right. Add in role players like Stacy King and Cliff Levingston and you had a heck of a group. In fact, the bench almost always outscored the other team's second unit because Pip and MJ staggered their minutes.

In the late 90s, Rodman was the 3rd best player and Kukoc was 6th man. Longley, Wennington and James Edwards formed a solid 3 headed monster at center and Rob Harper was another former all star playing a role for a great team.

Those groups were great. But it wasn't all Jordan. It had a lot to do with Jordan's teammates and with the fact that the other league stars were spread around and none had legit superstar teammates. Stockton and Malone were the closest. There were no super teams back then.

 

[purguy12]

Well, I don't want to get into the whole Finals' record debate thing again.

But I will say this. Jordan never faced a team that was clearly superior to his in the Finals. I am not sure what the Vegas lines were in the Bulls/Lakers series, but I am sure the Bulls were the favorite every time after, if not then also.

LeBron has faced teams that were clearly favored on paper 3 times, and those Spurs teams were every bit the Heats' equal. His Finals record is understandable. 1 player cannot win a championship alone, yet it can be argued that LeBron did more for his team last year than any championship winning player ever.

Just because the Bulls teams were better than LeBron's teams does not mean the door should be automatically shut on the conversation. LeBron has a ways to go to approach Jordan's level, but the talk about GOAT is about more than just team achievements because a lot of other guys had a hand in those as well.

There is only one indisputable fact that comes from looking at Finals records. Jordan's Bulls were a more dominant team than any of LeBron's teams. Implying that Finals record automatically makes Jordan superior is a slap in the face to Pippen, Rodman, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc, John Paxson, Ron Harper, Bill Cartwright, Steve Kerr, and all the other players who contributed to those titles. It is like saying these guys did not matter.

There is a reason for that MJ was the best player in the league and would be dumb to bet against him. Hence 6-0 in finals. Overall I hear what u are saying but let's be honest Miami was that team bf they only won 2 out of 4.

 

[tlance]

There is a reason for that MJ was the best player in the league and would be dumb to bet against him. Hence 6-0 in finals. Overall I hear what u are saying but let's be honest Miami was that team bf they only won 2 out of 4.

I agree that on paper Miami should have been that team, but they were not.

It took LeBron and Wade time to figure things out because they both played similar games offensively. By the time they did, Wade started to experience injuries and was no longer a dominant force. He was still very good, just not elite.

Those Spurs teams were every bit as good as Miami. In fact, in their second meeting they were better. I have seen most of the Heat fans on here admit that.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Point is still, how are the cavs a super team when they rely too much on lebron?

 

[bksballer89]

Point is still, how are the cavs a super team when they rely too much on lebron?

I wouldn't say they rely too much on LeBron. Do you watch their games when all 3 are playing? I don't think so

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I wouldn't say they rely too much on LeBron. Do you watch their games when all 3 are playing? I don't think so

What is their record without lebron?

 

[Shanemansj13]

I wouldn't say they rely too much on LeBron. Do you watch their games when all 3 are playing? I don't think so

Scoring wise you are correct, but if we are talking about at all facets of the game they look like a completely different team when he is on the court and when he isn't. That is expected, but it seems kind of extreme.

 

[trojanfan12]

What is their record without lebron?

As I've posted before, their record without Lebron is pretty misleading. In several of those games, Love and/or Kyrie were also sitting out.

It's also silly to assume that's what their record would be like if they lost Lebron for an extended period of time. It assumes that the team wouldn't adjust to try and make up for the loss of Lebron.

If they were to lose Lebron, it's likely that they would make the necessary adjustments and still be a solid playoff team in the East. They aren't winning any championships without him, but they should be able to reach the 2nd round of the playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Scoring wise you are correct, but if we are talking about at all facets of the game they look like a completely different team when he is on the court and when he isn't. That is expected, but it seems kind of extreme.

Not extreme at all. The Showtime Lakers also weren't the same when Magic was out. You can't replace the court vision of guys like that. That's why, on a team with other all star caliber players, they still manage to be the best player.

The Showtime Lakers had 2 other hall of famers in Kareem and James Worthy and other really good players like Byron Scott, Michael Cooper and Mychal Thompson and they still struggled when Magic was out of the lineup.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

As I've posted before, their record without Lebron is pretty misleading. In several of those games, Love and/or Kyrie were also sitting out.

It's also silly to assume that's what their record would be like if they lost Lebron for an extended period of time. It assumes that the team wouldn't adjust to try and make up for the loss of Lebron.

If they were to lose Lebron, it's likely that they would make the necessary adjustments and still be a solid playoff team in the East. They aren't winning any championships without him, but they should be able to reach the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Yes but would you call the cavs a super team without lebron? Even if they did the necessary adjustments?

 

[trojanfan12]

Yes but would you call the cavs a super team without lebron? Even if they did the necessary adjustments?

Of course not. Having Lebron is what seals the deal and makes them a super team.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Of course not. Having Lebron is what seals the deal and makes them a super team.

I'll have to disagree with that.

I personally don't think that if ONE player makes the difference between the clear top seed and a 6-8 seed AT BEST, then that team could be considered a super team at all.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Not extreme at all. The Showtime Lakers also weren't the same when Magic was out. You can't replace the court vision of guys like that. That's why, on a team with other all star caliber players, they still manage to be the best player.

The Showtime Lakers had 2 other hall of famers in Kareem and James Worthy and other really good players like Byron Scott, Michael Cooper and Mychal Thompson and they still struggled when Magic was out of the lineup.

They didnt struggle to the point of this Cavs team. They still got a 3 seed. This is a completely different team without Lebron, not saying the Lakers werent a different team but not to this extent bc they had at least other HOFers to pick up the slack

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Again, i'm (or a change) not trying to rip on the cavs at all. Just pointing out facts.

Someone pointed out that the 2009-10 Lakers were a super team with Kobe, Pau and Odom too which I also disagreed on. Take Kobe away from that team and they only just make the playoffs.

 

[Shanemansj13]

I'll have to disagree with that.

I personally don't think that if ONE player makes the difference between the clear top seed and a 6-8 seed AT BEST, then that team could be considered a super team at all.

I actually agree with you. One player that makes a huge huge difference which translates from a team to barely making the playoffs to win a championship does not make this a super team. I mean they barely have another All-Star in Kyrie. Love hasnt made an All-Star team since his days in Cleveland and until this year hasnt played like one. And even though Kyrie played like a superstar in the Finals last year he made an All-Star team 2 years ago as a reserve. This isnt a super team at all

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I actually agree with you. One player that makes a huge huge difference which translates from a team to barely making the playoffs to win a championship does not make this a super team. I mean they barely have another All-Star in Kyrie. Love hasnt made an All-Star team since his days in Cleveland and until this year hasnt played like one. And even though Kyrie played like a superstar in the Finals last year he made an All-Star team 2 years ago as a reserve. This isnt a super team at all

Agreed. In fact the only team in recent memory that can be considered a super team is the Warriors. In that they were a championship material team and recently added a top 3 player. You take away Curry, Durant or Klay and this team still fights for a Finals spot.

But this would only be the case if they win a couple more titles. If this current GSW team doesn't win again or goes 1-4 in a stretch of five years, then they shouldn't be considered a super team either.

 

[trojanfan12]

I'll have to disagree with that.

I personally don't think that if ONE player makes the difference between the clear top seed and a 6-8 seed AT BEST, then that team could be considered a super team at all.

One player does make the difference though. The Showtime Lakers were a super team when they had Magic. Without him, they were a really good team.

Adding KD cemented the Warriors as a super team.

It's the collection of all star caliber players and one player, especially when he's the best player in the game, becomes the final piece of a super team. Miami with Wade and Bosh, is a good team. Miami with Wade, Bosh and Lebron...super team.

The Cavs with Love and Kyrie, would still be a good team. The Cavs with Love, Kyrie and Lebron...super team.

 

[trojanfan12]

They didnt struggle to the point of this Cavs team. They still got a 3 seed.

They lost Magic for a lot longer, so they had time to adjust to life without him. They were also bounced in the first round of the playoffs that season. They got swept when they lost him for the finals vs. Detroit when they were going for the three-peat.

The Cavs haven't been without Lebron for any significant amount of time, so there has been no need to adjust to life without him. If they were to lose him for a significant amount of time, they'd adjust to life without him, would be a solid playoff team and would probably make the 2nd round.