<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 1 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 1 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look, in the last 29 years, 28 teams have won NBA titles with superstars supported by the right role players and one has won with "a team built through balance and depth".</div> Look again. they all had depth. The Nets have filled their rosters with role players taht are typically out of the league the enxt year. There's no indication that would change. </div> Those role players were quality depth because they complimented the superstars they played with. You are proposing that a group of good players can win a title without a superstar if they develop together and play great team basketball. History does not support that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 1 2008, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 1 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 1 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look, in the last 29 years, 28 teams have won NBA titles with superstars supported by the right role players and one has won with "a team built through balance and depth".</div> Look again. they all had depth. The Nets have filled their rosters with role players taht are typically out of the league the enxt year. There's no indication that would change. </div> Those role players were quality depth because they complimented the superstars they played with. You are proposing that a group of good players can win a title without a superstar if they develop together and play great team basketball. History does not support that. </div> No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm not suggesting anything. what I am SAYING is that the nets are incapable of cobbling together a bench when they've paid 2/3 of their team salary to three guys. I am also SAYING that I don't want to root for a totally different team just because they happen to wash the same laundry as these nets. If I was so intent on rooting for a "winner," above all else, I'd switch allegience to my new hometown team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 1 2008, 09:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 1 2008, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 1 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Mar 1 2008, 02:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look, in the last 29 years, 28 teams have won NBA titles with superstars supported by the right role players and one has won with "a team built through balance and depth".</div> Look again. they all had depth. The Nets have filled their rosters with role players taht are typically out of the league the enxt year. There's no indication that would change. </div> Those role players were quality depth because they complimented the superstars they played with. You are proposing that a group of good players can win a title without a superstar if they develop together and play great team basketball. History does not support that. </div> No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm not suggesting anything. what I am SAYING is that the nets are incapable of cobbling together a bench when they've paid 2/3 of their team salary to three guys. I am also SAYING that I don't want to root for a totally different team just because they happen to wash the same laundry as these nets. If I was so intent on rooting for a "winner," above all else, I'd switch allegience to my new hometown team. </div> If the Nets are incapable of putting together such a bench, it's not because it isn't possible. That salary model is the one that's proven to be successful.
