:snicker:snicker
Here we go.
The fact that you don't recognize that this is the result of the basic nature of their roster construction is the problem in this conversation. You severely and vastly overrate the Thunder's talent outside the Big 2. Of course they are going to rely almost entirely on Durant and Westbrook on offense; they have nothing else of significance unless Waiters is playing very well. Reggie Jackson doing one of his mindless sprints to the hole or Ibaka hitting a jumper here and there is not significant.
The Thunder are the classic case and point of what I dubbed the NBA's "role-oriented philosophy", where you take 1 or 2 stars and then build a cast of limited role players (instead of all-around playmakers) around them. This philosophy is why Minnesota went from Western Conference finalists with KG to worst team in the NBA when Garnett was traded to Boston. This philosophy is why Cleveland went from #1 seed in the East in 2009-2010 to losing 26 games in a row during LeBron's first season with Miami.
And, as it pertains to OKC, this is why the Thunder are a measly 9-16 without Durant. And can you imagine just how bad it would be if both Durant and Westbrook were hurt? They would easily be one of the two or three worst teams in the NBA.
I know you think the world of Jeremy Lamb, but I saw him at UConn and he is nothing special. Ibaka is good on defense, but both he and Perkins are totally overpaid. The Thunder are built to live and die with the Durant-Westbrook duo (an imperfect duo, by the way). It's not Brooks's fault that the roster is imbalanced and flawed.
Every team in the Western Conference playoff hunt ahead of OKC has more balance scoring-wise on their roster. They don't have as good a Top 2 and aren't as good on defense, but offensively they are more balanced. And I have to give San Antonio mild credit for understanding that a team of 5 active parts has major advantages over a team dependent on 1 or 2 superstars. Where I object to San Antonio is that their 5 active parts usually are pitiful as individual NBA basketball players.
Also, I would add that you do overrate Durant a little bit. He has great ball skills, but his skinny frame is a problem in terms of closing out games against physical defense. It wasn't Brooks's fault that Durant got tired and missed wide-open jumpshots against San Antonio in Game 6 last year that would have sealed the game. Durant had every chance to win that game and he failed to, partially because he simply missed open shots that people like you think he never misses, partially because he was tired, and partially because Leonard's physicality frustrated him. On all three counts, that was not Scott Brooks's fault.
Here we go.
Broken_Shoelace said:
The fact that you don't recognize that this is the result of the basic nature of their roster construction is the problem in this conversation. You severely and vastly overrate the Thunder's talent outside the Big 2. Of course they are going to rely almost entirely on Durant and Westbrook on offense; they have nothing else of significance unless Waiters is playing very well. Reggie Jackson doing one of his mindless sprints to the hole or Ibaka hitting a jumper here and there is not significant.
The Thunder are the classic case and point of what I dubbed the NBA's "role-oriented philosophy", where you take 1 or 2 stars and then build a cast of limited role players (instead of all-around playmakers) around them. This philosophy is why Minnesota went from Western Conference finalists with KG to worst team in the NBA when Garnett was traded to Boston. This philosophy is why Cleveland went from #1 seed in the East in 2009-2010 to losing 26 games in a row during LeBron's first season with Miami.
And, as it pertains to OKC, this is why the Thunder are a measly 9-16 without Durant. And can you imagine just how bad it would be if both Durant and Westbrook were hurt? They would easily be one of the two or three worst teams in the NBA.
I know you think the world of Jeremy Lamb, but I saw him at UConn and he is nothing special. Ibaka is good on defense, but both he and Perkins are totally overpaid. The Thunder are built to live and die with the Durant-Westbrook duo (an imperfect duo, by the way). It's not Brooks's fault that the roster is imbalanced and flawed.
Every team in the Western Conference playoff hunt ahead of OKC has more balance scoring-wise on their roster. They don't have as good a Top 2 and aren't as good on defense, but offensively they are more balanced. And I have to give San Antonio mild credit for understanding that a team of 5 active parts has major advantages over a team dependent on 1 or 2 superstars. Where I object to San Antonio is that their 5 active parts usually are pitiful as individual NBA basketball players.
Also, I would add that you do overrate Durant a little bit. He has great ball skills, but his skinny frame is a problem in terms of closing out games against physical defense. It wasn't Brooks's fault that Durant got tired and missed wide-open jumpshots against San Antonio in Game 6 last year that would have sealed the game. Durant had every chance to win that game and he failed to, partially because he simply missed open shots that people like you think he never misses, partially because he was tired, and partially because Leonard's physicality frustrated him. On all three counts, that was not Scott Brooks's fault.
