Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 22842 Location: La Jolla, San Diego
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Why are the Thunder so bad despite having three stars?
activeverb wrote:
Runway8 wrote:
[
These guys in OKC.. three wing players who are all DA MAN, who all shoot low 40's, they're going nowhere. .
I don't think we disagree. I'm saying part of the reason they are all shooting in the low 40s is because they don't fit well together. On other teams, with teammares who complemented them better, they each could and did shoot much better.
Last year, for example, George shot 46-39-90.
True. Like if PG13 teamed with Lebron, I could see better numbers. But as the man, I haven't been high on any of those threes, which was why I was very vocal on not surrending any talent for PG13. I'd take him for free in free agency, but not in a trade. Regarding his FG%, last year was strangely efficient, and I've said I don't believe it until he strings a few years like that. So I'm not surprise his numbers are down again.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144462 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:36 pm Post subject:
rwongega wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
saetarubia wrote:
OKC are #2 in defensive rating. Big 3 not providing efficient offense.
Where are they getting all that defense from with Carmelo on the floor? Is Steven Adams really that impactful of a defender?
Maybe watch them play? Your preconceived ideas are wrong.
He's asking an honest question. If you don't have anything of substance to reply, then maybe you shouldn't.
m
If he watched them play he would see that Melo is playing defense. The preconceived idea that he doesn’t is wrong. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Hmm, guess PG13 will be available if they don't make the playoffs.
I wonder if they would have been better without making the Carmelo and Paul George trades. Oladipo has emerged as an All-Star and Sabonis is a solid role player, along with Kanter and McDermott. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Because just big names and big contracts don't win games. This is what I am most scared of with the Lakers FO, to chase some names. All this "two max contracts" talk is not always a good idea. I'D rather have three good and solid players that work together than 2 big names that don't.
Can we get Steven Adams instead of Paul George?
And sometimes collecting names works out great ala Boston 08, Miami '10, GS w durant, almost us with Malone and Payton. IMO the most important concepts that lead to success in this sport are lineups, and read & react. I haven't watch a lot of Thunder this year but they are clearly lacking these on offense at least. I doubt they stay this bad the remainder of the year however.
OKC are #2 in defensive rating. Big 3 not providing efficient offense.
Where are they getting all that defense from with Carmelo on the floor? Is Steven Adams really that impactful of a defender?
slow half court iso offense, low transition rate either side. Their half court defense isn't particularly good, their transition defense isn't either, but since transition defense is much worse than half court defense, it works out in their favour. Of course having a low volume of transition offense and not being good at what they do get leaves them with one hell of an anemic offense. _________________ I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong
Hmm, guess PG13 will be available if they don't make the playoffs.
I wonder if they would have been better without making the Carmelo and Paul George trades. Oladipo has emerged as an All-Star and Sabonis is a solid role player, along with Kanter and McDermott.
Hard to say. Kanter leaving gave Adams an opportunity and he has played great. Anyone's guess if Oladipo would have broken out if he had stayed in OKC under Westbrook's shadow.
In any case, their defense is much better and their offense is worse. Last year they won a lot of games with Westbrook playing hero ball and that's not happening.
But they got wiped out of the first round 1-4. So if they undid the Anthony and George changes I don't see them being a team that mattered.
I dont get why anyone gave this team hype to begin with. George was a good fit in that his is a 2 way player and a decent outside shot but Melo has a negative net impact with his 0 defense and inability to play within his current means _________________ (bleep) Kawhi
I dont get why anyone gave this team hype to begin with. George was a good fit in that his is a 2 way player and a decent outside shot but Melo has a negative net impact with his 0 defense and inability to play within his current means
It was hyped because Westbrook led them to a playoff spot....with Melo and PG13 it was thought they could achieve more.....what I guess people didn't realize was how little Melo can help a team at this point of his career.
I dont get why anyone gave this team hype to begin with. George was a good fit in that his is a 2 way player and a decent outside shot but Melo has a negative net impact with his 0 defense and inability to play within his current means
Thank you I think Westbrook/PG13 would've been good but you throw in Melo and well.
I dont get why anyone gave this team hype to begin with. George was a good fit in that his is a 2 way player and a decent outside shot but Melo has a negative net impact with his 0 defense and inability to play within his current means
It was hyped because Westbrook led them to a playoff spot....with Melo and PG13 it was thought they could achieve more.....what I guess people didn't realize was how little Melo can help a team at this point of his career.
By adding George and allowing Adams to be the full time center, they've dramatically improved their defense.
The problem is Westbrook thrives in hero ball, so he hasn't figured out how to work with George and Melo (plus Melo is a shadow of what he was).
They are disjointed, don't pass the ball fluidly, and they lack shooters.
It's a long season, and I am not going to write them off, especially since they have the #2 defense.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35813 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:35 pm Post subject:
Isn't it sort of strange how Carmelo was once considered someone who would have a superstar career, but in retrospect his impact is not even close to that of someone like Paul Pierce? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Isn't it sort of strange how Carmelo was once considered someone who would have a superstar career, but in retrospect his impact is not even close to that of someone like Paul Pierce?
Carmelo has had a superstar career (10 all-star appearances; 15th best scoring average in NBA history). He hasn't had most post-season success. But to be fair, he really hasn't been on many good teams.
Paul Pierce is a superstar too. But he didn't really have much post season success until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen. If not for that luck, I'm not sure we'd be talking about how impactful he was.
They're both locks for first-ballot Hall of Famers. In ESPN's list of 100 best players of all time, Pierce came in 45 and Carmelo 59. I think Pierce is the better player, but they're not that far apart.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35813 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Isn't it sort of strange how Carmelo was once considered someone who would have a superstar career, but in retrospect his impact is not even close to that of someone like Paul Pierce?
Carmelo has had a superstar career (10 all-star appearances; 15th best scoring average in NBA history). He hasn't had most post-season success. But to be fair, he really hasn't been on many good teams.
Paul Pierce is a superstar too. But he didn't really have much post season success until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen. If not for that luck, I'm not sure we'd be talking about how impactful he was.
They're both locks for first-ballot Hall of Famers. In ESPN's list of 100 best players of all time, Pierce came in 45 and Carmelo 59. I think Pierce is the better player, but they're not that far apart.
You think Pierce was a legitimate superstar and franchise player?
How would you rank the following four: Pierce, McGrady, Wade, Carmelo? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Isn't it sort of strange how Carmelo was once considered someone who would have a superstar career, but in retrospect his impact is not even close to that of someone like Paul Pierce?
Carmelo has had a superstar career (10 all-star appearances; 15th best scoring average in NBA history). He hasn't had most post-season success. But to be fair, he really hasn't been on many good teams.
Paul Pierce is a superstar too. But he didn't really have much post season success until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen. If not for that luck, I'm not sure we'd be talking about how impactful he was.
They're both locks for first-ballot Hall of Famers. In ESPN's list of 100 best players of all time, Pierce came in 45 and Carmelo 59. I think Pierce is the better player, but they're not that far apart.
You think Pierce was a legitimate superstar and franchise player?
How would you rank the following four: Pierce, McGrady, Wade, Carmelo?
"Legtimate superstar" seems like a loaded phrase. Pierce was Boston's franchise player for at least a decade.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum