View Full Version : Question about non super star success

02-26-2011, 10:18 AM
How much success can a team that is 10 deep with productive players, young with potential, chemistry, great coaching and great defense go?

Is it possible for that type of team to compete with a team of 2 or 3 super stars but secondary players every where else?

If you owned a team would you rather have a team of 2 or 3 superstars and not too much else or a young exciting team that is able to throw good to very good but not great player after player after you?

Last thing I want to say is this topic is not aimed at any team intentionally or unintentionally this is just a topic I think is discussion worthy and contrary to the super team idea and topics.

Thanks for input and debate.

02-26-2011, 10:24 AM
superstars. the leauge is ran by them and dominated by them.

02-26-2011, 10:31 AM
superstars. the leauge is ran by them and dominated by them.

lets hear from a non heat fan

02-26-2011, 11:07 AM
no, only teams with legit superstars win the championships.

02-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Its possible, but you need a top notch defense and a locker room w/ zero divas to do it (see: 04 Pistons)

Rare, but it happens :shrug:

02-26-2011, 12:46 PM
You need that top dog who will carry the team down the stretch.

02-26-2011, 12:48 PM
Yup, most of the time you need that 1 guy who leads his team on and off the court. It has happened before though with a team that has one goal, and brings their A game on both ends of the floor, without a superstar.

02-26-2011, 01:21 PM
Winning without a superstar doesn't happen very often. The last time it did was with the Detroit Pistons when they eliminated the Lakers in the Finals. Considering how the league is design nowadays, you definitely need a team with at least two stars, 1 doesn't cut it anymore.

02-26-2011, 04:31 PM
10 deep? Il take that and trade for one allnba caliber guy

02-26-2011, 05:02 PM
I would take the superstar team as long as the secondary players are capable of performing well in the playoffs.