Lillard could be. I don't think he's in the discussion for being a top 3 player in the league though. He is in the discussion for ROY, and deservedly so.
Well that's really the whole point. Our "big three" has the talent to be one of the best in the league, they just need a little time.
Well, that's not necessarily a requirement. It is still possible to win a title without a top 3 player in the league. The Celtics won with Garnett, Pierce and Ray Allen sharing the scoring burden and the Pistons won without a single player averaging 20ppg. And, as I pointed out, our Big 3 is the youngest on the list and still has time to improve. In spite of David Stern's corruption of the game to favor certain players and teams, basketball is still played 5-on-5. The best player doesn't necessarily win the title. Otherwise, we could just skip the playoffs and give the title to the team with the regular season MVP. Yeah, it's nice to have a top 3 player in the league on your roster, but given there are only 3 of those around at any given time, having three 20ppg scorers isn't a bad fall back plan. BNM
We talk about how bad the bench is , and yes it does not look good, but at least there is no one who is shooting a lot with a bad percentage. Sure 0-1 or 1-3 every night will not add up very well over the course of a season, but they know who their scorers are on this team, and they are allowing those guys to shoot. There is usually always a starter in the game with the bench, and those guys are shooting. Look at the box score and you hardly see any shots being put up by the bench. Which is fine by me until they add another scorer.
Great Thread Boob! Repped. Been saying this for a while, we now have our big three. Unless you find a starting shooting guard like Harden (who can play both offense and D), we can't afford to not have Wes guarding the opposing teams best player. Yes Wes needs to watch some tape and smooth out his offensive game, but with the big three we don't need an epic scorer at the starting SG spot. What we need is a spark plug instant offense SG off the bench.
Well looking at the two below Portland; their bench sucks badly too. We need role players to work with our starters. And keep in mind we have another player averaging 14+ points (matthews).
Thanks! Of course, if we luck out in the lottery and get Muhammad, or fall ass backwards into lopsided trade like Houston did for Harden you do it. But until then, I'm fine with Wes Matthews as our starting SG. He's averaging a career high 16.1ppg (32nd in the entire league) as our 4th option and I REALLY like the defensive intensity he's bringing. The guy is only 26, works really hard in the off season, doesn't complain and brings the energy every night. Let the young guys, Batum, Lillard and especially Leonard, continue to improve add another quality player through the draft, free agency, or a lopsided trade for cap space, and bolster our sucky bench, and this can be a VERY good team in a couple years - and all our key players will still be under 30! BNM
Depends on the format in espn regular leagues i believe he is fifth Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Garnett, Pierce, and Allen were in the top few player discussion. It's not like they used to score 15, then started scoring 20 once together. A team is bound to have 3x 20PPG scorers if the rest of the players are crap. I don't know of any NBA team in modern history that's scored less than 60 PPG
Well, I suppose that would, be true IF the rest of the team was crap. But, they're not. Perhaps you missed that part about Wesley Matthews averaging 16.1 ppg (32nd in the entire league). And JJ Hi kson is averaging a double double. Yes, the bench sucks, but the bench isn't the entire rest of the team. Charlotte was the worst team in NBA history last season. Obviously most of their roster sucked. How many players did they have average 20ppg? Averaging 20 ppg in the NBA is, and will always be, a significant accomplishment. Three players doing it on the same team is very, very rare. BNM
20 PPG is terrific. The Bobcats have a much deeper team and bench so they spread their shots around. The Blazers starters take at least 70 of the teams ~85 shots per game.
Nice to have a big 3 with very complementary games--prototypical size, speed, shooting and athleticism at PG, SF and PF.
I guess we have a different definition of deep. The Charlotte I was referring to was last year's 7-59 squad that set a regular season record for lowest winning percentage (.106). How can a team that loses 90% of it's games be considered deep? What they were was a team full of equally bad to mediocre players. They didn't have a single player with a PER =>15.0. Not a single average NBA starter on their entire roster. To me, that sounds more like shallow than deep. They didn't have a single player that could step up and lead them to victory. I'd take our roster and over reliance on our starters over that one any time. Who wouldn't? We only need 3 more wins to match their total for all of last season. BNM
Yep, we have a PG, a wing and a big man. Nice mix. If Leonard can develop into a rebounding/shot blocking presence inside, we'll really only need to stock our bench with quality veterans and role players. That's still a long way away, but so far, I'm very impressed with Lillard and the New Nic. I don't think either one has reached their peak. BNM
Deep means Boris Diaw is your 8th man and is worthy of 8 FGA/game. No player on the team took more than 13.1 FGA/game.
