Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,279

    Unhappy Did Lebron and AD show that players 3-15 on NBA rosters are just pawns?

    I used to root for players on my team who I doubted would ever make an all-star game, but who gave it their best in every game.

    After seeing Lebron and AD absolutely destroy every team in the playoffs, I no longer care about players 3-15. Lebron and AD would have won on any team that could sign them. The Lakers 3-15 is one of the worst group of players I have ever seen. (Rondo and Howard would have joined Lebron/AD on any team, so those guys shouldn't be included).

    At best, these 3-15 players are just trade bait to get the superstar players your team is missing.

    There is absolutely no benefit to developing players if you can just pick up the supporting cast in free agency.
    Last edited by Federal Reserve; 10-16-2020 at 03:09 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,804
    We've had this debate quite a bit over the last month. Some claim Lebron's supporting cast is "stacked." Some think it's hot garbage. I'm somewhere in the middle. Outside of Lebron and AD, I don't think they have a single guy who I would consider an above average starter at any position. But KCP and Green are at least competent starters who are plus overall players, and they have a number of quality supporting guys like Caruso, Rondo, Morris and Howard.

    So it's not the worst 3-15 in the league. But I do think if you compared them to other contenders' 3-15, it's probably among the worst, if not the worst. I do think, though, there's something to be said for the fact that they're stacked with quality defenders. There's not a lot of quality offensive guys in that bunch, but almost all of them are great individual defenders, and some of them border on being excellent defenders.

    So, no, I don't think 3-15 is totally irrelevant. I think if you really look at those early 2000s Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams, their 3-15 was pretty mediocre, too. But they had solid role players that played to a specific style of play, and I think this Lakers' supporting cast does as well. That being said, if LA wants to win more titles, they've got to improve their supporting cast. I'm not sure they can win next year with the identical group.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    We've had this debate quite a bit over the last month. Some claim Lebron's supporting cast is "stacked." Some think it's hot garbage. I'm somewhere in the middle. Outside of Lebron and AD, I don't think they have a single guy who I would consider an above average starter at any position. But KCP and Green are at least competent starters who are plus overall players, and they have a number of quality supporting guys like Caruso, Rondo, Morris and Howard.

    So it's not the worst 3-15 in the league. But I do think if you compared them to other contenders' 3-15, it's probably among the worst, if not the worst. I do think, though, there's something to be said for the fact that they're stacked with quality defenders. There's not a lot of quality offensive guys in that bunch, but almost all of them are great individual defenders, and some of them border on being excellent defenders.

    So, no, I don't think 3-15 is totally irrelevant. I think if you really look at those early 2000s Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams, their 3-15 was pretty mediocre, too. But they had solid role players that played to a specific style of play, and I think this Lakers' supporting cast does as well. That being said, if LA wants to win more titles, they've got to improve their supporting cast. I'm not sure they can win next year with the identical group.
    The point from my post is not to rank the Lakers's supporting cast. The point is to show how little value the supporting cast have. All of them were picked up in free agency after the team was formed on paper. The Lakers did not have to develop any of the players. NBA free agency is always sufficient enough to pick up supporting cast players.

    If what I say is correct, then there is absolutely no benefit to developing players.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    28,119
    The supporting cast is terrible. Thanks to LeCoach and Vogel, guys that have been nothing for years like Rondo and Howard were put in perfect roles to contribute. And AD was put in a perfect position to be dominant as well.


    This doesn't work for other teams, it worked for LA because they have LeBron and the KD warriors didn't exist anymore.




    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Federal Reserve View Post
    The point from my post is not to rank the Lakers's supporting cast. The point is to show how little value the supporting cast have. All of them were picked up in free agency after the team was formed on paper. The Lakers did not have to develop any of the players. NBA free agency is always sufficient enough to pick up supporting cast players.

    If what I say is correct, then there is absolutely no benefit to developing players.
    Oh, OK. Sorry, it was just hard to gather that from your thread title and the rest of your post. I see your bolded statement at the bottom now.

    To counter this, then, I'd argue that while you can pick up a bunch of guys in free agency and win games, the greatest teams, the dynasties of the sport, are teams that built supporting casts that grew over time and developed continuity. I mentioned the Shaq/Kobe Lakers earlier. Their supporting cast just in terms of talent sucked. But they knew what to expect from Fisher, Fox, Horry, etc. every night. That consistency gave them staying power over time.

    If the Lakers completely revamp their supporting cast in the offseason to have a completely different group of guys, they might get better on paper. But they're going to have to learn to play together, and that takes time. That's a challenge to deal with that teams with experienced groups of longtime teammates don't have to deal with.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    50,669

    Did Lebron and AD show that players 3-15 on NBA rosters are just pawns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federal Reserve View Post
    I used to root for players on my team who I doubted would ever make an all-star game, but who gave it their best in every game.

    After seeing Lebron and AD absolutely destroy every team in the playoffs, I no longer care about players 3-15. Lebron and AD would have won on any team that could sign them. The Lakers 3-15 is one of the worst group of players I have ever seen. (Rondo and Howard would have joined Lebron/AD on any team, so those guys shouldn't be included).

    At best, these 3-15 players are just trade bait to get the superstar players your team is missing.

    There is absolutely no benefit to developing players if you can just pick up the supporting cast in free agency.
    I agree with your post but will qualify it by saying you donít need to develop players if you can land guys like LeBron and AD. At that point you just fill in the blanks and you will likely be better then the team that developed. Itís unfortunate


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 10-16-2020 at 04:29 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    50,669

    Did Lebron and AD show that players 3-15 on NBA rosters are just pawns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federal Reserve View Post
    The point from my post is not to rank the Lakers's supporting cast. The point is to show how little value the supporting cast have. All of them were picked up in free agency after the team was formed on paper. The Lakers did not have to develop any of the players. NBA free agency is always sufficient enough to pick up supporting cast players.

    If what I say is correct, then there is absolutely no benefit to developing players.
    The buy out market makes it even worse. If one of these mercenaries get hurt or underperforms you can get quality veteran role players mid season after they are brought out by a bad team


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 10-16-2020 at 04:30 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    4,988
    I wouldnít go that far, they definitely ran through the west but they got major help in the Finals from injury. They couldíve used some better role players imo.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    16,389
    False. Their supporting cast was not bums.

    Think of it this way. Year one in Miami this was the playoff supporting rotation for the 2011 HEAT:

    Mario Chalmers
    Udonis Haslem (off major foot surgery)
    Mike Miller (off major wrist surgery)
    Corpse of Mike Bibby
    Joel Anthony (Starter)

    Compare those guys to Rondo, Kuzma, Howard, Morris, KCP

    Yes, they were still just 2 wins away from winning while LeBron choked, but the idea is you really need at least 5 good players. 5 players that can be relied upon at any time. Ideally the other 2-3 players outside your superstars should be good enough to get major minutes on any team in the league. I'm not inflating these guys to star status, but I can say without bias that Rondo, Kuzma, Howard, Morris, and KCP are guaranteed to get 15 minutes on every single team in the NBA.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,388
    Supporting players mean little in the NBA. That's been known.

    When your #1 is Lebron, the arguable GOAT, and AD, a arguable top 5 player in the game right now, then it matters even less. Most teams aren't so lucky to have such a stacked top 2 that they can have a pu-pu platter from #3 on down like LA did.

    I would say most teams should only invest heavily in their top 4 guys. Then at #5/#6 you need good players. And beyond that, you just need another 2-3 more guys who play the right complimentary game to those guys. The rest of your roster is just to look pretty on paper - doesn't really matter.

    I'd say the Lakers had a phenomenal top 2 and then a whole collection go guys who fit into that last category. They didn't have legit #3-6 players but it didn't matter because #1 and #2 are so ****ing good.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,543
    In the regular season spots 3-15 mean a lot. You need to be able to let the top guys take a break.

    But in the post season they mean less and less. Top guys arenít taking those breaks. They get the ball every possession. One of them is on the floor at all times.

    Is it nice having a better 3-15. Absolutely. I donít want that missed. But without those first two spots itís harder on those other guys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,388
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    In the regular season spots 3-15 mean a lot. You need to be able to let the top guys take a break.

    But in the post season they mean less and less. Top guys arenít taking those breaks. They get the ball every possession. One of them is on the floor at all times.

    Is it nice having a better 3-15. Absolutely. I donít want that missed. But without those first two spots itís harder on those other guys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think this is right but #3 is an aggressive place to start that. If #1-2 are Lebron and AD then sure. But for the type of #1-2 that everyone else has you need a few more guys included to where you get to the rest donít matter.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,543
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    I think this is right but #3 is an aggressive place to start that. If #1-2 are Lebron and AD then sure. But for the type of #1-2 that everyone else has you need a few more guys included to where you get to the rest donít matter.
    I was close to saying 7-15 don't matter due to not every duo being two top 5 players. lol.

    But yea, beyond a certain spot the overall quality doesn't really matter when rotations shallow out, breaks become shorter, and guys start playing tighter.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    26,576
    I think your rotation of 8 players is very important. If the other players didn't matter then you could have had Lebron + AD and a bunch of G league players. But obviously players like Rondo, Howard, Kuzma, Green, Caruso, Morris, McGee were all contributors.

    If you actually watched these playoffs and the Lakers run to a ship you would know that Rondo was vital. The Lakers had no guards, and also beyond Lebron they needed Rondo to be a creator/ ball handler. With out him they would have been in some trouble. Who else would have given them help at the guard position?

    Howard was also very good in his role. He was strong defensively and on the glass. Having him to replace Cousins was actually huge. He played perfectly with in his role coming off the bench or even starting when ever Vogel needed it.

    Caruso, Kuzma gave them depth.

    Green gave them another perimeter defender and a guy who can spread the floor. He flopped in the finals, but having him through out the season def helped.


    I think you guys are forgetting that having strong role players who compliment your stars is actually very important. Look no further than this years Clippers as your example. They had all the talent in the world and for some reason couldn't mesh it all together.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 10-17-2020 at 03:08 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,512
    Thatís why teams like Boston and Detroit won rings because they were 4 and 5all stars deep

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •