Discussion in 'Sports' started by GahLee, Nov 22, 2018.
Anybody who thinks the Warriors are better without Durant missed last year's finals.
Curry is fun to watch, but Durant is better at basketball.
They'd still be odds-on favorites to win the championship without Curry.
They'd be a worse version of the Durant-Westbrook Thunder, who never won a championship.
No, they wouldn't. That's silly. Westbrook is a ball-dominating point guard. Are you assuming that the Warriors would replace Curry with a ball-dominating point guard?
Who did the Thunder have like Klay Thompson? Who did they have like Draymond Green?
You mean ball-dominant? Silly is assuming that putting the ball in Klay’s hands instead of Westbrook’s makes your team better. Durant, Westbrook, Harden (and Ibaka, who was good at the time) vs. Durant, Klay Thompson and an aging Draymond Green, and the latter is not only “better” but you’re taking them over the field? Good luck with that
Are we talking about just losing Curry and not replacing him with anyone? My understanding, and the point I’ve been making all along, included swapping him out for another top 10-15 PG in the league.
I think y’all are talking about two different things, but I’d take last year’s Rockets over your Kemba version pretty comfortably. And Kemba is a top 5-7 PG, if you’re extending it down to #15 you’re looking at Goran Dragic or Jeff Teague or something
Regardless, the team won a championship and then went 73-9 when Durant was replaced by Harrison Barnes. KD is still the consensus #2 on the planet, so I’m not sure this is a particularly strong argument against Curry’s greatness.
You're introducing yet another debate (last year's Rockets over Warriors with Kemba instead of Curry). Can we stick with one specific debate?
I think if you replace Curry with Kemba this year, the Warriors are still the best team in the league. Do you agree or disagree?
Winning one championship does not a top 3 player make. And who gives a [uck fay] about 73-9 when they lost in the Finals?
The team that won the first championship was also much different from the current team. It's not just a 1 for 1 swap of Barnes for Durant. And the rest of the NBA landscape was very different as well.
Right now I’d probably take them narrowly over Toronto and Philly, but it’s solely based on track record. If Houston gets its shit together, I definitely disagree.
It’s pretty hard to not give a [uck fay] about the best record in history. The 16-0 Patriots didn’t win a championship either, but they’re still pretty obviously one of the best teams we’ve seen, and that season is still a huge part of Brady’s resume.
The rest of the NBA was probably better then than it is now. The 2016 Thunder were better than any challenger this Kemba team would face, again, unless Houston gets its shit together.
I don't argue with people often about Brady's greatness, but in the few times that I have, I don't think I've ever heard anyone use his 16-0 season where he didn't win the Super Bowl as a major talking point in his favor.
There's no way to know for sure whether the NBA was better then or now, so there's no point arguing about it. My only point was that the landscape was different. It's also not always about who has the better players. A lot of times, it's about match ups and chemistry.
I would take a Warriors team with Kemba instead of Curry over every single other team in the field, and I don't think it's really even close.
Also, Warriors now winners of three straight without both Green AND Curry.
I'm not saying it necessarily means anything one way or another, but I think it shows that we can't overreact to the 4 losses prior, with regards to what they mean about Curry's value to the team.
Well, they have 21 in a row with him on the bench. Went to two Finals, won one, should a won both. Also beat what many though was an unbreakable record with the 73 wins.
But he isn't as important to the team as Curry.
Better defender, doesn't shoot you out of games as much.
They won rings and set records without Durant.
Separate names with a comma.