WOJ: Thunders blame Westbrook for failures over 11 years

[LukeWalton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1PbvmPv0c

:eek:

shouldn't the thunders blame themselves

[Sportal]

Oh was it Westbrook that was too cheap to give Harden a contract to keep him in OKC... Oh no wait, didn't they keep Ibaka instead? :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm not the biggest Westbrook fan. Never have been.

BS like this always comes up after the fact tho.

And its just that... bullshit.

You ship George, and are surprised Westbrook wants out? If dude was such a cancer you wouldn't have tolerated him for 10 years. What a joke :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Westbrook suffers from a poor perception more than poor results. There are franchises who have only won 47+ games 3 years in a row as they just did with him once in 50 years. People act like 3 years of losses in the first round is some shocking condemning shit like Reggie Miller didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs outright 6 years in a row. Or like Hakeem didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs 5 years in a row. Nique the same 5 years in a row....two different times. Memphis did it 15 years in a row 5-6 of them with Pau. THe Kings went 20 years(early 80s to Webber). I think aside from that fluke year they made the WCF winning 40 games and the Webber run? They won about 2 playoff series in 70 years. I think the Nets won one playoff series between the ABA and Jason Kidd. Minus the Lebron years the Cavs won I think 4 playoff series in 50 years. Minnesota? 2 playoff series wins in 30 years both of them in 2004. I think the Hornets/bobcats won 3 series in 30 years. Stockton and Malone can lose in the first round 9 times....thats all good.

The way people talk you would think the Thunder have been some unusually unsuccessful team in his brief run as leader. In reality.....you look over the career of most legends?

A 3 year run of good records without winning a series is hardly remarkable. And most of those players were in worse conferences than the West has been. Ray Allen won one playoff series in I believe 6 years in his prime. Tmac didnt win a series till the year he retired on the Spurs. I think George Gervin won 3 playoff series in his career. All time top 50 guys have played with other top 50 guys...in their primes...and didnt win a playoff series for years and years. Several times.

But people act like Russ just invented losing and does it like no other.

[NBAGOAT]

this is a bad look for the organization, pretty unexpected. yea hes not worth his contract or good enough to lead a title team at this point. That's the organization's fault for going in that direction

[Wally450]

I watched the video twice just to make sure, but there was nothing that said or gave off the idea that the Thunder blamed Westbrook for their failures. :confusedshrug:

[Foster5k]

I watched the video twice just to make sure, but there was nothing that said or gave off the idea that the Thunder blamed Westbrook for their failures. :confusedshrug:
facts.

Op why you always lying. :oldlol:

[RealSkipBayless]

lol no

I don't even like Westbrook but blame the gm/ownership for the problems over the years. They are the ones who didn't want to pay James Harden and traded him for a box of animal crackers. They then traded for Oladipo and it failed miserably.

But the stars aligned.. Paul George requested a trade and he specifically told the Lakers not to trade for him and they got him. Somehow despite Westbrook losing his mind in the playoffs and getting embarrassed by Ricky Rubio, while Paul George was punked by Joe Ingles. Paul George agreed to stay and signed a 4 year deal. Presti then went full retard again and traded Paul George who was under contract. He had no obligation to listen his demands at all. Especially when all you are getting are some mid (miami) and late (clippers) 1st round picks for him. You'd be better off being one of the 5 teams in the mix to come out of the west.

Presti never gave Westbrook any decent shooters to play with either. Only one I can think of is doug mcdermott years ago.

[stalkerforlife]

Westbrook is entertaining.

But plays far too stupidly far too much.

A chicken with his head cut off.

[tpols]

Its more their fault for choosing Westbrook over harden...

As gay as he can be, harden is still significantly more impactful. They could've won with him.

and kept Durant... That was their biggest **** up

[SouBeachTalents]

Its more their fault for choosing Westbrook over harden...

As gay as he can be, harden is still significantly more impactful. They could've won with him.

and kept Durant... That was their biggest **** up
Durant was incredibly pedestrian (for his standards) in the playoffs on OKC after Harden was traded. And with Harden's playoff history, idk what makes you think the Thunder fare any better with him than with Westbrook

[HitandRun Reggie]

People both in this thread and on the YT comments section stupid AF. Everyone getting all emotional over another CLICKBAIT YT video. Nowhere does it provide any evidence the Thunder publicly blame Westbrook for their failures. :facepalm

Clickbait videos :rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

Westbrook suffers from a poor perception more than poor results. There are franchises who have only won 47+ games 3 years in a row as they just did with him once in 50 years. People act like 3 years of losses in the first round is some shocking condemning shit like Reggie Miller didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs outright 6 years in a row. Or like Hakeem didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs 5 years in a row. Nique the same 5 years in a row....two different times. Memphis did it 15 years in a row 5-6 of them with Pau. THe Kings went 20 years(early 80s to Webber). I think aside from that fluke year they made the WCF winning 40 games and the Webber run? They won about 2 playoff series in 70 years. I think the Nets won one playoff series between the ABA and Jason Kidd. Minus the Lebron years the Cavs won I think 4 playoff series in 50 years. Minnesota? 2 playoff series wins in 30 years both of them in 2004. I think the Hornets/bobcats won 3 series in 30 years. Stockton and Malone can lose in the first round 9 times....thats all good.

The way people talk you would think the Thunder have been some unusually unsuccessful team in his brief run as leader. In reality.....you look over the career of most legends?

A 3 year run of good records without winning a series is hardly remarkable. And most of those players were in worse conferences than the West has been. Ray Allen won one playoff series in I believe 6 years in his prime. Tmac didnt win a series till the year he retired on the Spurs. I think George Gervin won 3 playoff series in his career. All time top 50 guys have played with other top 50 guys...in their primes...and didnt win a playoff series for years and years. Several times.

But people act like Russ just invented losing and does it like no other.

Yep, not to mention...

The Thunder failed to surround him with the kind of shooting that is absolutely necessary if the only result that matters is winning in the playoffs.

Russ has his flaws...he's by no means perfect...but he is way better than people here and in the basketball world give him credit for.

Again, I'd like to see other players win without shooting from the role players.

[DMAVS41]

Its more their fault for choosing Westbrook over harden...

As gay as he can be, harden is still significantly more impactful. They could've won with him.

and kept Durant... That was their biggest **** up

I think this is fair if you are going the route of Russ would have gotten them a better return at the time.

But just a Harden/Russ swap out wasn't changing anything imo...they still aren't beating the teams they lost to in the playoffs and the defense would have been worse as well.

[LukeWalton]

Westbrook suffers from a poor perception more than poor results. There are franchises who have only won 47+ games 3 years in a row as they just did with him once in 50 years. People act like 3 years of losses in the first round is some shocking condemning shit like Reggie Miller didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs outright 6 years in a row. Or like Hakeem didnt lose in the first or miss the playoffs 5 years in a row. Nique the same 5 years in a row....two different times. Memphis did it 15 years in a row 5-6 of them with Pau. THe Kings went 20 years(early 80s to Webber). I think aside from that fluke year they made the WCF winning 40 games and the Webber run? They won about 2 playoff series in 70 years. I think the Nets won one playoff series between the ABA and Jason Kidd. Minus the Lebron years the Cavs won I think 4 playoff series in 50 years. Minnesota? 2 playoff series wins in 30 years both of them in 2004. I think the Hornets/bobcats won 3 series in 30 years. Stockton and Malone can lose in the first round 9 times....thats all good.

The way people talk you would think the Thunder have been some unusually unsuccessful team in his brief run as leader. In reality.....you look over the career of most legends?

A 3 year run of good records without winning a series is hardly remarkable. And most of those players were in worse conferences than the West has been. Ray Allen won one playoff series in I believe 6 years in his prime. Tmac didnt win a series till the year he retired on the Spurs. I think George Gervin won 3 playoff series in his career. All time top 50 guys have played with other top 50 guys...in their primes...and didnt win a playoff series for years and years. Several times.

But people act like Russ just invented losing and does it like no other.

at the end of the day, its the owners fault.
No body wanna go out and play in OKC, thats why Presti couldnt get Westbrook and KD the right players.
They got lucky with drafts since leaving Seattle

[DMAVS41]

at the end of the day, its the owners fault.
No body wanna go out and play in OKC, thats why Presti couldnt get Westbrook and KD the right players.
They got lucky with drafts since leaving Seattle

To some extent this is true...however, failing to get shooting post 2013 isn't all on the location of the team or the cheap owners...it was on Presti and he failed to get the key thing needed to win around stars to win...and it is even more essential with a player like Russ.

[Kblaze8855]

Yep, not to mention...

The Thunder failed to surround him with the kind of shooting that is absolutely necessary if the only result that matters is winning in the playoffs.

Russ has his flaws...he's by no means perfect...but he is way better than people here and in the basketball world give him credit for.

Again, I'd like to see other players win without shooting from the role players.


Im reminded of a scene from Moneyball. Some scout was telling Pitts character about some really fundamentally sound great hitter. The back and forth was something like:

"So you think hes a good hitter?"


"He is a good hitter!"


"So why doesnt he hit good?"



You hear about guys who are apparently just...losers by play style and nature. Yet....the guys who are the polar opposites often dont win shit either. The guys with a winning fundamental approach...still lose all the time. If you built your business on hating on ____ when they lose business is gonna be good almost no matter who ____ is.

[DMAVS41]

Im reminded of a scene from Moneyball. Some scout was telling Pitts character about some really fundamentally sound great hitter. The back and forth was something like:

"So you think hes a good hitter?"


"He is a good hitter!"


"So why doesnt he hit good?"



You hear about guys who are apparently just...losers by play style and nature. Yet....the guys who are the polar opposites often dont win shit either. The guys with a winning fundamental approach...still lose all the time. If you built your business on hating on ____ when they lose business is gonna be good almost no matter who ____ is.

Yep, could not agree more.

They wouldn't do it, but I actually think the Bulls would be really interesting for him.

I'd love to see Russ play with a stretch big like Lauri with a smart player on the wing that is as good of a shooter as Porter.

It is kind of a shame that we are likely to never see Russ in his element on a team that actually makes sense around him in an optimal way.

Gallo would have been a nice pairing with Russ...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Westbrook gets unfair criticism - agreed.

Its not unwarranted. A lot of the crap he does is boneheaded. Still...the flack he gets is stuff people gloss over with other players.

And those players are celebrated like legends.

The only other modern player I see comparable? Melo. At least Brook made a finals though.

[DMAVS41]

Westbrook gets unfair criticism - agreed.

Its not unwarranted. A lot of the crap he does is boneheaded. Still...the flack he gets is stuff people gloss over with other players.

And those players are celebrated like legends.

The only other modern player I see comparable? Melo. At least Brook made a finals though.


And Russ should go down, rightfully so, as a clear better player than Melo...because he was.

[SouBeachTalents]

Westbrook gets unfair criticism - agreed.

Its not unwarranted. A lot of the crap he does is boneheaded. Still...the flack he gets is stuff people gloss over with other players.

And those players are celebrated like legends.

The only other modern player I see comparable? Melo. At least Brook made a finals though.
I'd say Dwight too. People always shit on that dude, some of it justifiable of course, when he was making All-NBA First Team & winning DPOY like 3 years in a row and also making the Finals & ECF b2b years

[NBAGOAT]

westbrook's a first ballot hofer but he really had a 3 year prime where he was truly great and a top 5 type player. Unfortunately two of the years he had crappy rosters. Even with his flaws more obvious in the other years, he didnt drop outside like top 15 from like 2012 on.

[Kblaze8855]

Westbrook gets unfair criticism - agreed.

Its not unwarranted. A lot of the crap he does is boneheaded. Still...the flack he gets is stuff people gloss over with other players.

And those players are celebrated like legends.

The only other modern player I see comparable? Melo. At least Brook made a finals though.


The gloss over is real.

We just straight up ignore shit from legends while murdering current guys. People hating on Russ for a 37/12/11 series loss because of poor shooting like Tim Hardaway didnt shoot 36%, 29%, 27%, and 22% in series getting eliminated with a contender in the Heat. The 22% was when he was washed up(still starting though) but he often shot like shit in his better days. Tim played till he was 36 and had 3 good shooting playoff series. I love Timmy...but im not gonna act like the Knicks didnt often shackle him aside from that one year he totally put them to bed with an unusual hot streak late one game.

We just ignore the things we want.

[DMAVS41]

The gloss over is real.

We just straight up ignore shit from legends while murdering current guys. People hating on Russ for a 37/12/11 series loss because of poor shooting like Tim Hardaway didnt shoot 36%, 29%, 27%, and 22% in series getting eliminated with a contender in the Heat. The 22% was when he was washed up(still starting though) but he often shot like shit in his better days. Tim played till he was 36 and had 3 good shooting playoff series. I love Timmy...but im not gonna act like the Knicks didnt often shackle him aside from that one year he totally put them to bed with an unusual hot streak late one game.

We just ignore the things we want.

I think also part of the problem is that people judge Russ like he's a top 15 player of all time or something. They put obscene and unrealistic expectations on him as a player and then tear him to pieces when he doesn't live up to them.

[tpols]

The gloss over is real.

We just straight up ignore shit from legends while murdering current guys. People hating on Russ for a 37/12/11 series loss because of poor shooting like Tim Hardaway didnt shoot 36%, 29%, 27%, and 22% in series getting eliminated with a contender in the Heat. The 22% was when he was washed up(still starting though) but he often shot like shit in his better days. Tim played till he was 36 and had 3 good shooting playoff series. I love Timmy...but im not gonna act like the Knicks didnt often shackle him aside from that one year he totally put them to bed with an unusual hot streak late one game.

We just ignore the things we want.


the difference is tim hardaway wasnt anything close to being an MVP.

people judge relative to expectation.

[sammichoffate]

Sonics Curse Lives on, OKC about to lose 3 MVPs and PG :eek:

[Kblaze8855]

You don

[Pacquiao]

When Steven Adams let Westbrook grab those rebounds and his Low IQ Fans still in denial with his statpadding:roll: :roll:

[tpols]

ive had him as a top 15-20 player while many before the past few years believed his MVP hype.

of course theres a sort of melo clause on him... doesnt work in a lot of spots but shines in the right light. to a shallow degree since you aint winning with him as a lead dog, and he compromises teamwork as a secondary option with his selfishness...

is what it is mate.

[DMAVS41]

ive had him as a top 15-20 player while many before the past few years believed his MVP hype.

of course theres a sort of melo clause on him... doesnt work in a lot of spots but shines in the right light. to a shallow degree since you aint winning with him as a lead dog, and he compromises things as an alterior option with his selfishness...

is what it is mate.

But there are MVP's that you could argue aren't winning as lead dog.

So saying he's only in the 15 to 20 range and then saying you aren't winning with him as the best player doesn't really go together. Plenty of players in the top 5 or 10 in the league aren't winning a chip as the clear cut best player...that is super rare historically.

And I'm not even sure that is clearly the case with a peak Russ and the right team around him. I think you are right, but we never saw Russ surrounded with a stretch big and 3/D solid wings.

Guys that should fall into the "can't win with them as your lead dog" that won MVP if you are putting Russ there...at least since I've been watching;

Nash
Harden
Iverson
Rose
Robinson
Karl Malone

Maybe Durant and Barkley as well. Barkley probably did enough when he led the Suns against MJ...they probably win the title enough historically.

Durant though? We certainly haven't seen it...in fact, when he was that "lead dog" he couldn't get it done.

[Kblaze8855]

This is where it gets funny to me....

When the extreme majority of guys nothing like him won even less what evidence is there that he’s compromising teams with selfishness?

When guys nothing like him lose we start looking into team reasons but just lay the entire blame on him when he loses?

It’s like he causes it his teams to lose but the other 70 or so legend who didn’t do shit he didn’t lost for totally different reasons.

He can’t just lose because winning is hard like everyone else?

It’s as if he shot his team out of games every time and we ignore guys who take 12 shots and lose as if they couldn’t have done more. Mark price scores 13 a game and gets swept you can’t say he shot his team out....but does that mean he contributed more bottom line?

The end result for most everyone is losing. We just Bend over backwards to assign extra blame to some who have the same outcomes as everyone else.

[tpols]

But there are MVP's that you could argue aren't winning as lead dog.

So saying he's only in the 15 to 20 range and then saying you aren't winning with him as the best player doesn't really go together. Plenty of players in the top 5 or 10 in the league aren't winning a chip as the clear cut best player...that is super rare historically.

And I'm not even sure that is clearly the case with a peak Russ and the right team around him. I think you are right, but we never saw Russ surrounded with a stretch big and 3/D solid wings.

Guys that should fall into the "can't win with them as your lead dog" that won MVP if you are putting Russ there...at least since I've been watching;

Nash
Harden
Iverson
Rose
Robinson
Karl Malone

Maybe Durant and Barkley as well. Barkley probably did enough when he led the Suns against MJ...they probably win the title enough historically.

Durant though? We certainly haven't seen it...in fact, when he was that "lead dog" he couldn't get it done.



All of those guys are miles ahead of westbrook except rose and maybe iverson.

david ****ing robinson or westbrook?

:biggums:

Durant and barkley?

:biggums: :biggums:


jesus....

[DMAVS41]

All of those guys are miles ahead of westbrook except rose and maybe iverson.

david ****ing robinson or westbrook?

:biggums:

Durant and barkley?

:biggums: :biggums:


jesus....

You are missing the point.

I'm going off of your criteria of "can't win with him as the lead dog"...

Those guys never won as the lead dog either.

That is my point...I'm not arguing where Russ ranks among those guys, but we likely disagree a bit here as well.

But the main point is that you won't be consistent...as Blaze is trying to point out.

Nash is miles better, yet Nash never even made the finals. Couldn't win shit with Dirk as he flamed out in the playoffs...couldn't win with near perfect roster construction around him on the Suns.

But, yep, he's just clearly way better than Russ...

Do you really not see the point?

[Kblaze8855]

Imagine a team with the modern equal of prime Dirk, Walker, Jamison, and end of prime Finley having Westbrook as its point and losing in the first round. Westbrook might be literally tarred and feathered.

Basketball is just weird at times. It

[tpols]

You are missing the point.

I'm going off of your criteria of "can't win with him as the lead dog"...

Those guys never won as the lead dog either.

That is my point...I'm not arguing where Russ ranks among those guys, but we likely disagree a bit here as well.

But the main point is that you won't be consistent...as Blaze is trying to point out.

Nash is miles better, yet Nash never even made the finals. Couldn't win shit with Dirk as he flamed out in the playoffs...couldn't win with near perfect roster construction around him on the Suns.

But, yep, he's just clearly way better than Russ...

Do you really not see the point?


Nash was better at basketball in a vacuum and the entire driving force behind his teams success... which was a dominant team a hair away from winning a title.

The only teams westbrook was on that went as far nash's, he was playing fiddle to ATG durant. Nash was his team's durant, thats the difference.

And he played the right way, with a brilliant edge, thus could be plugged in anywhere in his prime and have great success. He got hurt on dallas but was otherwise very good. Got even better results once given his own team.

im looking at their abilities as basketball players and projecting across all hypothetical scenarios, not just microscoping whatever specific stats or outcomes their teams had whilst their roles and circumstances were apples and oranges.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Imagine a team with the modern equal of prime Dirk, Walker, Jamison, and end of prime Finley having Westbrook as its point and losing in the first round. Westbrook might be literally tarred and feathered.

Basketball is just weird at times. It

[DMAVS41]

Nash was better at basketball in a vacuum and the entire driving force behind his teams success... which was a dominant team a hair away from winning a title.

The only teams westbrook was on that went as far nash's, he was playing fiddle to ATG durant. Nash was his team's durant, thats the difference.

And he played the right way, with a brilliant edge, thus could be plugged in anywhere in his prime and have great success. He got hurt on dallas but was otherwise very good. Got even better results once given his own team.

im looking at their abilities as basketball players and projecting across all hypothetical scenarios, not just microscoping whatever specific stats or outcomes their teams had whilst their roles and circumstances were apples and oranges.

So you admit that your "lead dog" criteria isn't a good one and isn't consistent....correct?

Also, if you think Nash deserves a pass for never even making the finals given the teams he was on...you need to come back to reality.

Again, if that was Russ's results in similar circumstances...you would crucify him.

[Kblaze8855]

Nash was better at basketball in a vacuum and the entire driving force behind his teams success... which was a dominant team a hair away from winning a title.

The only teams westbrook was on that went as far nash's, he was playing fiddle to ATG durant. Nash was his team's durant, thats the difference.

And he played the right way, with a brilliant edge, thus could be plugged in anywhere in his prime and have great success. He got hurt on dallas but was otherwise very good. Got even better results once given his own team.

im looking at their abilities as basketball players and projecting across all hypothetical scenarios, not just microscoping whatever specific stats or outcomes their teams had whilst their roles and circumstances were apples and oranges.

Yea....he played the right way on teams of immense talent and lost like 17 years in a row. That right way shit gets you the same place the

[tpols]

So you admit that your "lead dog" criteria isn't a good one and isn't consistent....correct?

Also, if you think Nash deserves a pass for never even making the finals given the teams he was on...you need to come back to reality.

Again, if that was Russ's results in similar circumstances...you would crucify him.


no i wouldnt because when russ loses he generally plays and shoots awfully and couldve done a ton more to win. Steve Nash showed up in the spurs losses, in those lakers losses... peak for peak, prime for prime Steve Nash never fell flat on his face like westbrook has the past 3 years in the playoffs.

[Kblaze8855]

So you admit that your "lead dog" criteria isn't a good one and isn't consistent....correct?

Also, if you think Nash deserves a pass for never even making the finals given the teams he was on...you need to come back to reality.

Again, if that was Russ's results in similar circumstances...you would crucify him.


Imagine Westbrook with a 25-30 PPG beast big, a 20/10 all d teamer, and Joe Johnson off the bench in a league with less deep teams than we have now....losing....

The wave of rolling emojis would drown us all.

[Kblaze8855]

no i wouldnt because when russ loses he generally plays and shoots awfully and couldve done a ton more to win. Steve Nash showed up in the spurs losses, in those lakers losses... peak for peak, prime for prime Steve Nash never fell flat on his face like westbrook has the past 3 years in the playoffs.


And the result was what?

We talking feelings or results?

[NBAGOAT]

love nash but are we sure pea nash is a clear tier above 17 westbrook. Like 06 nash is a nice carryjob without stat but it's a still a good team with marion/shooters and why many thought kobe or someone else deserved mvp. Just dont know about that. He does have some trouble fitting with others but a lot of star pgs actually do. Nash is better all time because his prime is more consistently strong.

[DMAVS41]

no i wouldnt because when russ loses he generally plays and shoots awfully and couldve done a ton more to win. Steve Nash showed up in the spurs losses, in those lakers losses... Steve Nash never fell flat on his face like westbrook has the past 3 years in the playoffs.

In the 04 playoffs;

Nash put up 14/5/9 on 46% TS while being on the short list of worst defenders ever.

In the 03 conference finals...Nash put up 15/4/7 55% TS while again being one of the worst defenders ever.

Tell me more about never falling flat on his face.

And, again, all he did was not win his entire career despite loaded rosters in his absolute best years in the league.

[DMAVS41]

Imagine Westbrook with a 25-30 PPG beast big, a 20/10 all d teamer, and Joe Johnson off the bench in a league with less deep teams than we have now....losing....

The wave of rolling emojis would drown us all.

Shit, when he lost to the Rockets his MVP year...to a clear cut better team...

He got hammered.

[Kblaze8855]

In the 04 playoffs;

Nash put up 14/5/9 on 46% TS while being on the short list of worst defenders ever.

In the 03 conference finals...Nash put up 15/4/7 55% TS while again being one of the worst defenders ever.

Tell me more about never falling flat on his face.

And, again, all he did was not win his entire career despite loaded rosters in his absolute best years in the league.


Imagine that....Steve Nash going 6/20 in a close loss as his team full of all stars scores 79 points.

[tpols]

And the result was what?

We talking feelings or results?


Result of what?

Nash having a much better playoff performance than westbrook?

Their teams lost for different reasons, individually one has clearly outperformed the other.

Be one thing if nash was a cancer and westbrook had some unholy intangible impact on his teammates that was unaccounted for..

of course, it was the other way around, lmao.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'd roll with Nash myself.

Better shooter, more offensive gravity because of his range (also better), better technical passer and getting teammates quality looks. I'd lean toward the better half-court player too...if wanting what's most effective for the team. Nash was just a better decision maker all around, and someone I'd prefer in the playoffs.

Just my opinion. Then again, I'm not using tpols' criteria either. Nash "deserves" criticism all the same.

[Kblaze8855]

When a cancer and a vitamin give you the same results in the end does it really matter what you call either one of them?

[DMAVS41]

Result of what?

Nash having a much better playoff performance than westbrook?

Their teams lost for different reasons, individually one has clearly outperformed the other.

Be one thing if nash was a cancer and westbrook had some unholy intangible impact on his teammates that was unaccounted for..

of course, it was the other way around, lmao.

If one is so much better than the other...how the **** did Nash never even make the NBA finals?

His help just wasn't good enough?

Really?

[DMAVS41]

I'd roll with Nash myself.

Better shooter, more offensive gravity because of his range (also better), better technical passer and getting teammates quality looks. I'd lean toward the better half-court player too...if wanting what's most effective for the team. Nash was just a better decision-maker all around, and someone I would prefer in the playoffs.

Just my opinion. Then again, I'm not using tpols criteria either. Nash "deserves" criticism all the same.

It is tough because this discussion is about who do you want as the clear cut best player on your team for winning.

I don't think I'd want Nash...I think he has next to no chance to ever win a title that way...and I like Nash.

But, not enough is ever made of how truly historically horrific his defense was and what that did to his teams.

With Russ...give me a bunch of tough wing defenders that can nail 3's, a rim running big, and another stretch big...at his peak...not likely, but possible they make an 01 Sixers run, but win it.

[Kblaze8855]

I'd roll with Nash myself.

Better shooter, more offensive gravity because of his shooting (also better), better technical passer (and better at getting teammates quality looks). I'd lean toward the better half-court player too...if you're talking about what's most effective for the team. Just a better decision-maker all around, and someone I would prefer in the playoffs.

Just my opinion. Then again, I'm not using tpols criteria either. Nash "deserves" criticism all the same.



I

[sammichoffate]

If one is so much better than the other...how the **** did Nash never even make the NBA finals?

His help just wasn't good enough?

Really?He should've that one year Horry got Amare suspended.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I

[NBAGOAT]

It is tough because this discussion is about who do you want as the clear cut best player on your team for winning.

I don't think I'd want Nash...I think he has next to no chance to ever win a title that way...and I like Nash.

But, not enough is ever made of how truly historically horrific his defense was and what that did to his teams.

i gotta disagree here. Nash's defense did hurt but the suns main sieve was stat. If they had a better defender who was 80% of the offensive player stat was, they likely would've been better and were very close already with some bad luck with the 05 injury to johnson and the 07 suspensions.

06 suns winning 54 with around a 1.5 point dropoff in srs and making the conference finals is decent evidence too of my claim. Finally somehow the spurs big 3 is underrated now. It's not a strong one but it's still 1 mvp level guy+ 2 all star lvl guys and that is top tier for the mid 00s

[DMAVS41]

He should've that one year Horry got Amare suspended.

You mean the elimination game he lost when Amare scored 40?

Or the game before at home in a tied series in which he shot 6/19 and his team blew a 4th qtr lead?

:confusedshrug:

And this isn't to hate on Nash...it is to point out all the warts and flaws and failures that all these other guys have that are supposedly "clearly better" than Russ...

Even though the actual results don't indicate that at all.

[Kblaze8855]

I think Stockton if he took the reins from Karl would be the best but he just wouldn

[DMAVS41]

i gotta disagree here. Nash's defense did hurt but the suns main sieve was stat. If they had a better defender who was 80% of the offensive player stat was, they likely would've been better and were very close already with some bad luck with the 05 injury to johnson and the 07 suspensions.

06 suns winning 54 with around a 1.5 point dropoff in srs and making the conference finals is decent evidence too of my claim. Finally somehow the spurs big 3 is underrated now. It's not a strong one but it's still 1 mvp level guy+ 2 all star lvl guys and that is top tier for the mid 00s

I think I agree, but a guy 80% as good as Amare on offense that happens to be a really good defender is likely a better player than Nash.

Could argue this both ways...team would have been better with the reverse...80% of Nash on offense and a much better defender and they win.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I think Stockton if he took the reins from Karl would be the best but he just wouldn

[NBAGOAT]

I think I agree, but a guy 80% as good as Amare on offense that happens to be a really good defender is likely a better player than Nash.

Could argue this both ways...team would have been better with the reverse...80% of Nash on offense and a much better defender and they win.

thats true but I mean a big who isnt even a good defender. Just slightly above average and I would still argue for my point. I dont think that's true for nash since pg defense isnt as important and I'm just pretty low on amare.

[sammichoffate]

You mean the elimination game he lost when Amare scored 40?

Or the game before at home in a tied series in which he shot 6/19 and his team blew a 4th qtr lead?

:confusedshrug:Game 5 he had Kurt Thomas(lol) who had 15/12.
Game 6 Amare actually had 38, Nash had 18/14 and shot 70%. Losing Game 3=/=losing Game 4 and 5, that shifts the momentum of the series. Also p sure Tim Donaghy rigged Game 3, if i'm not mistaken.

[DMAVS41]

thats true but I mean a big who isnt even a good defender. Just slightly above average and I would still argue for my point. I dont think that's true for nash since pg defense isnt as important and I'm just pretty low on amare.

I personally think the offense just flames out when the going gets tough on those Suns teams if you don't have Amare.

I know Nash got better once the rules changed and his health improved, but in his time on Dallas...he wasn't taking over a game offensively in the playoffs without some elite offensive help.

Just look at the game Amare was out against the Spurs. I know it is tough just being without a player, but the minute you ask Nash to do more than he was comfortable doing...the results tended to drop off dramatically.

Not enough is made, imo, of how he got to operate in his comfort zone most of his time in the league on these teams.

And we'll just have to disagree on his defense. Normally I'd agree about pg defense, but he was especially bad.

[tpols]

thats true but I mean a big who isnt even a good defender. Just slightly above average and I would still argue for my point. I dont think that's true for nash since pg defense isnt as important and I'm just pretty low on amare.


imagine if nash had durant instead in his MVP reign...

thatd be an easy title or two given how close they came and the upgrade hed provide.

[DMAVS41]

Game 5 he had Kurt Thomas(lol) who had 15/12.
Game 6 Amare actually had 38, Nash had 18/14 and shot 70%. Losing Game 3=/=losing Game 4 and 5, that shifts the momentum of the series.

I'm not arguing the suspension didn't matter...I'm simply saying it is kind of hard to argue he deserves a "lead dog" championship when that happens.

And, we all watched it...we all know game 5 was absolutely winnable if Nash plays well.

Also, I don't have it in front of me as I closed it, but I think he only took like 9 shots in game 6.

Again, comfort zone...he played in a giant comfort zone most of his best years on these teams.

To Blaze's point earlier...maybe shoot a bit more if your team is about to be eliminated in the playoffs...:confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

imagine if nash had durant instead in his MVP reign...

thatd be an easy title or two given how close they came and the upgrade hed provide.

So we are just putting Durant on the Suns instead of Amare?

What? That doesn't make any sense.

And, hate to break it to you...Nash wouldn't be the "lead dog" with Durant on the team.

[sammichoffate]

I'm not arguing the suspension didn't matter...I'm simply saying it is kind of hard to argue he deserves a "lead dog" championship when that happens.

And, we all watched it...we all know game 5 was absolutely winnable if Nash plays well.

Also, I don't have it in front of me as I closed it, but I think he only took like 9 shots in game 6.

Again, comfort zone...he played in a giant comfort zone most of his best years on these teams.

To Blaze's point earlier...maybe shoot a bit more if your team is about to be eliminated in the playoffs...:confusedshrug:The series was rigged, hard to be a lead dog at that point lol.

I personally wouldn't see Nash as a #1 option, but the game was different back then. If he played today, his stats and usage would be way higher.

[tpols]

So we are just putting Durant on the Suns instead of Amare?

What? That doesn't make any sense.

And, hate to break it to you...Nash wouldn't be the "lead dog" with Durant on the team.


he wouldnt have to be... one of the main points i expressed was steve's fit and portability. Of course Nash would compliment (and properly feed) durant more then WB did, and have greater team success as a result. So better as second option...

and then as far as first option goes Nash's teams were perennial WCF, hair away from a title while westbrooks are first round fodder losing to underdogs even after he acquired great running mates.

anyone that would argue westbrooks 'the man' teams of the past couple years have overachieved more than Nash's suns would have to be classified as downright out of their mind...

[NBAGOAT]

I personally think the offense just flames out when the going gets tough on those Suns teams if you don't have Amare.

I know Nash got better once the rules changed and his health improved, but in his time on Dallas...he wasn't taking over a game offensively in the playoffs without some elite offensive help.

Just look at the game Amare was out against the Spurs. I know it is tough just being without a player, but the minute you ask Nash to do more than he was comfortable doing...the results tended to drop off dramatically.

Not enough is made, imo, of how he got to operate in his comfort zone most of his time in the league on these teams.

And we'll just have to disagree on his defense. Normally I'd agree about pg defense, but he was especially bad.

i guess, i just think amare's defense mattered more. Like i'm a cp3 guy too and I would definitely argue he's more than 80% of nash as an offensive player. I'm not so sure the suns are a easy title pick with him instead of nash however.

I dont disagree nash needs some good and specific help around him to be successful. His Phoenix teams fit him really well, something westbrook hasnt gotten really ever lol. His great shooting masks the fact that he has trouble fitting with other talent. He's a ball dominant pg, they all do to some extent even though shooting helps. Back again to cp3, there's a reason the clippers didnt fall of that much when blake went out. It wasnt a super synergistic duo so there were fit issues

retroactively it's very easy to wonder how are nash/nowitzki, even though they're not in their primes yet, not dominating the league with a good supporting cast. well one reason is as deadly as a nash/dirk pnpop was, asking dirk to just be a shooting finisher is severely underusing him so it's just diminishing returns.

tbf to nash, a heavy isolation scorer even with great shooting doesnt fit ideally into talented teams either(and dirk having fantastic team results with just terry/howard as his main support is evidence of that)

I still think nash can win a title as a clear lead dog however. I think it's actually possible with 15-17 westbrook too however. People forget many people had westbrook as okc's best player in 2016

[DMAVS41]

he wouldnt have to be... one of the main points i expressed was steve's fit and portability. Of course Nash would compliment (and properly feed) durant more then WB did, and have greater team success as a result. So better as second option...

and then as far as first option goes Nash's teams were perennial WCF, hair away from a title while westbrooks are first round fodder losing to underdogs even after he acquired great running mates.

anyone that would argue westbrooks 'the man' teams of the past couple years have overachieved more than Nash's suns would have to be classified as downright out of their mind...

I don't think there is a year in which you sub Nash for Russ in which Nash gets a title.

But, again, I'm going by your criteria of "lead dog titles"...

Now you are just arguing Nash over Russ...which is a different argument. I'd rather have Nash in most situations, but not all...

But, again, Nash isn't winning shit as the "lead dog"...so I don't know why you use that to knock Russ.

[DMAVS41]

i guess, i just think amare's defense mattered more. Like i'm a cp3 guy too and I would definitely argue he's more than 80% of nash as an offensive player. I'm not so sure the suns are a easy title pick with him instead of nash however.

I dont disagree nash needs some good and specific help around him to be successful. His Phoenix teams fit him really well, something westbrook hasnt gotten really ever lol. His great shooting masks the fact that he has trouble fitting with other talent. He's a ball dominant pg, they all do to some extent even though shooting helps.

retroactively it's very easy to wonder how are nash/nowitzki, even though they're not in their primes yet, not dominating the league with a good supporting cast. well one reason is as deadly as a nash/dirk pnpop was, asking dirk to just be a shooting finisher is severely underusing him so it's just diminishing returns.

tbf to nash, a heavy isolation scorer even with great shooting doesnt fit ideally into talented teams either(and dirk having fantastic team results with just terry/howard as his main support is evidence of that)

I still think nash can win a title as a clear lead dog however. I think it's actually possible with 15-17 westbrook too however. People forget many people had westbrook as okc's best player in 2016

I agree with most of this...I just think Nash's defense isn't fully accounted for how bad it really was...

And, additionally, how Nash played within his comfort zone too much...now, that is mostly a great thing...but when push comes to shove in the playoffs and your back is against the wall...he tended to not treat it as such.

Just looked it up...took only 10 shots in the game 6 in 07...

To your point about Dirk/Nash...it was mainly due to the physical game back then really bothering Nash both from a productivity standpoint and a health standpoint.

But, even with that...they had historically good offenses...it was the defense...that was the problem...and while Dirk certainly wasn't anything noteworthy...he wasn't nearly as big of a negative as Nash was.

And...I just want everyone to imagine a peak Russ playing with..I'll use current players;

Russ/Danny Green/Covington/Draymond Green/Lauri

With a bench of Van Fleet/Brook Lopez/Matthews/Aminu

We sure that isn't winning a title certain years historically?

[NBAGOAT]

I agree with most of this...I just think Nash's defense isn't fully accounted for how bad it really was...

And, additionally, how Nash played within his comfort zone too much...now, that is mostly a great thing...but when push comes to shove in the playoffs and your back is against the wall...he tended to not treat it as such.

Just looked it up...took only 10 shots in the game 6 in 07...

To your point about Dirk/Nash...it was mainly due to the physical game back then really bothering Nash both from a productivity standpoint and a health standpoint.

But, even with that...they had historically good offenses...it was the defense...that was the problem...and while Dirk certainly wasn't anything noteworthy...he wasn't nearly as big of a negative as Nash was.

well i guess I would say dirk/nash on paper with shooters should be a lvl above historically good lol. It's just both arent the most portable even with their shooting(more nash tbf, dirk can get offensive rebounds and is comfortable as a play finisher). Just an issue of diminishing returns too.

Edit: and for westbrook it's simpler. Just take their team this year and replace terrance ferguson with jj redick and add a raptors type bench with a backup pg and stretch big who can defend and I like okc's chances

[DMAVS41]

well i guess I would say dirk/nash on paper with shooters should be a lvl above historically good lol. It's just both arent the most portable even with their shooting(more nash tbf, dirk can get offensive rebounds and is comfortable as a play finisher). Just an issue of diminishing returns too.

What is a level above historically good?

I think they had the 12th best offense, 3rd best offense, and best offense of all time relative to competition when Nash/Dirk played together in 02/03/04.

There is B/R ranking out there that we used to post a lot on here...

Yea, I came up with this as close to an optimal roster that is somewhat realistic around Russ;


Russ/Danny Green/Covington/Draymond Green/Lauri

With a bench of Van Fleet/Brook Lopez/Matthews/Aminu

[NBAGOAT]

What is a level above historically good?

I think they had the 12th best offense, 3rd best offense, and best offense of all time relative to competition when Nash/Dirk played together in 02/03/04.

There is B/R ranking out there that we used to post a lot on here...

Yea, I came up with this as close to an optimal roster that is somewhat realistic around Russ;


Russ/Danny Green/Covington/Draymond Green/Lauri

With a bench of Van Fleet/Brook Lopez/Matthews/Aminu

like a half point above the best offense of all time lol. Dirk/Nash both have arguments for being top 10 offensive players ever(sounds crazy but i believe that). Magic/Kareem have age and fit issues, shaq/kobe have the supporting cast and a coasting problem and durant is slightly overrated offensive impact wise along with gs coasting.

This is a good list for healthy offenses which also shows some evidence for nash and dirk as great offensive centerpieces on their own. http://www.backpicks.com/2016/08/01/the-best-healthy-offenses-of-all-time/

Your team is realistic but I'm not sure it wins even this year post gs. Very good however

[DMAVS41]

like a half point above the best offense of all time lol. Dirk/Nash both have arguments for being top 10 offensive players ever(sounds crazy but i believe that). Magic/Kareem have age and fit issues, shaq/kobe have the supporting cast and a coasting problem and durant is slightly overrated offensive impact wise along with gs coasting.

This is a good list for healthy offenses which al.so shows some evidence for nash and dirk as great offensive centerpieces

Your team is realistic but I'm not sure it wins even this year post gs. Very good however

Well, I'd say if you have 3 of the 12 best offenses of all time...not much left on that side of things.

I'm not sure it wins either, but even Russ haters wouldn't be shocked to see a team like that win without a Warriors level dyansty waiting.

[imdaman99]

Nice clickbait OP. Thunder organization love him. Their fans love him. There's some reporter interviewing random OKC people after the PG trade, some gramma was wishing PG well but then the reporter mentioned they might trade Russ, and her face made that sad face and she said Oh Noooo, he's not going anywhere.

Is he held responsible for them not winning? Sure, he's Mr OKC. But explain to me which of these teams he was on the past 3 seasons was doing anything but maxing out in the 2nd round. Losing in the 1st round is a bad look but it's not like they were prevented from contending, especially when PG got hurt this past year.

[GimmeThat]

the ownership group in which purchased the team from Professional basketball LLC has only surpassed it's past 2 predecessors of Barry Ackerly and Howard Schultz but not Sam Schulman

well it certainly was on pace to do so, but it's as if the Thunders have yet to figure out why would any basketball player choose to stay in school for an extra year instead of heading to the draft