If you replace Durant from that 2017 Warriors with a non-all star caliber player..

[Pipes2.0]

Would they have still beaten the Cavs in the 2017 Finals?
Obviously if you replace him with K. Leonard, Harden, Anthony Davis or maybe even Derozan they would have still won (players I listed were the top candidates for the 2017 Season MVP).

But what if they still had Harrison Barnes as their starting forward? I am trying to measure how much impact did he really have for the Warriors to win it all in 2017. Did they really need him to beat that 2017 Cavs team, how much overkill was it for him to join the 73 win team?
Or could that 2016 Warriors team just sign or trade for a solid, non-all star starting forward and get over the hump and win it all in 2017?

[ShawkFactory]

No.

[Johnny32]

not 2017. cavs offense was all time great in the playoffs.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Hell fukking no...

[FilmyCogTurner]

I think it would look something like the year prior - game 7 coin flip. Both teams to me were pretty even matched.

[Pipes2.0]

I think it would look something like the year prior - game 7 coin flip. Both teams to me were pretty even matched.

I would disagree on this take. As good as the Cavs were in 2016, they were even better in 2017. If that ****ing coward Durant didn't slither his way to the Warriors, the Cavs would've went back to back.

[hold this L]

I would disagree on this take. As good as the Cavs were in 2016, they were even better in 2017. If that ****ing coward Durant didn't slither his way to the Warriors, the Cavs would've went back to back.
Cavs in 2016
57 wins
10th defensive rating

Cavs in 2017
51 wins
21st defensive rating

If you want to make the argument they were as good, sure. Their offense got better but they were much worse off defensively. Saying that, I know I'm replying to one of the many alts of the usual suspects on here.

[Pipes2.0]

2017 Cavs were 12-1 in the playoffs before they faced the Warriors and would've been 12-0 if Bron didn't get sick. They obviously coasted in the Regular season but toyed with their Eastern conference opponents.

I have no idea of the alts that you're talking about. I created my account 2020 but have been lurking in this sub since 2015. Saying that, I can see how you've been mind-****ed by your so-called alts when you constantly accuse every other poster in here.

[TheGoatest]

If you replace Durant from that 2017 Warriors with a non-all star caliber player..

They would still be easily better than any team jordon ever beat in a 7 game series.

[Full Court]

They would still be easily better than any team jordon ever beat in a 7 game series.

You just HATE the fact that Jordan won all of his finals, don't you. :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

I would've thought this past season would've put this question to rest. I think those Finals would've been very competitive like they were the year before, but to outright dismiss that the Warriors couldn't have won without Durant? Ridiculous. I think a guy like Covington in Durant's place, or 2-3 capable role players, would've been enough for the Warriors to win. They just won with their core 5 years older.

[Xiao Yao You]

Durant wouldn't have been replaced by just one player. They would have had enough money for more than 1 non all star player. They would have been deeper certainly

[ImKobe]

Cavs had a better team in '17 so no. If you replaced KD's 35 ppg on all-time efficiency with Barnes' 10-15 ppg on mediocre shooting, they'd struggle to keep up with the Cavs' offense. GS gave up a decent amount of depth to be able to land KD, so they'd have needed multiple guys like Barnes in his place to give GS enough shooting around Steph & Klay.

[Pipes2.0]

They just won with their core 5 years older.

I understand it involves a little luck in winning a chip and not just a capable team, but the Warriors did get extremely lucky this year. I do not trust that Warriors team to beat a healthy Nuggets, Clippers, or even that Suns team who just crapped their pants against the Mavs. They would also have been but-fukked by the Bucks if they made it to the finals. But those are a lot of ifs and buts, so kudos to them for being healthy and beating the team in front of them.

Still, their Western conference run was the weakest in recent memory.


I would've thought this past season would've put this question to rest. I think those Finals would've been very competitive like they were the year before, but to outright dismiss that the Warriors couldn't have won without Durant? Ridiculous. I think a guy like Covington in Durant's place, or 2-3 capable role players, would've been enough for the Warriors to win.

It would take more than Covington and 2-3 role players for the Warriors to beat that 2017 Cavs. Their offense that playoffs were all time great, and only fell short because they faced the greatest team ever assembled in the Modern NBA. I think it was one of the best teams to not win a championship.

[Pipes2.0]

Cavs had a better team in '17 so no. If you replaced KD's 35 ppg on all-time efficiency with Barnes' 10-15 ppg on mediocre shooting, they'd struggle to keep up with the Cavs' offense. GS gave up a decent amount of depth to be able to land KD, so they'd have needed multiple guys like Barnes in his place to give GS enough shooting around Steph & Klay.

Sanest take I've ever read from this poster.