I am DEAD SERIOUS. The Heat have to win out (that's 18-0, for anyone that is counting) just to match Cleveland's win total from last year, and you guys all said Cleveland never gave Lebron a good supporting cast, so the logical assumption from that is: Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Mike Bibby, Eddie House, Mike Miller, Mario Chalmers, Erick Dampier etc. etc. are not good enough to get the job done.

Where to next Lebron? Orlando? Are they good enough??

Interesting thought... Not necessarily 100% descriptive of the reality of the situation, but interesting nonetheless. I think really what it shows is that with more talent it becomes harder to find chemistry, and chemistry is important.

Just like about a month ago everybody on this board and in the media were declaring the Lakers over the hill and done. Then all of a sudden they run off 8 in a row including a complete demoralization of the top team in the West and suddenly 'Kobes back!' 'The Lakers are the team to beat!'. Regular season NBA is extremely fickle. I'll be the first to admit I think the Bulls are the team to beat right now in the East, but I'd probably wait until the playoffs before running my mouth and taunting the Heat too much. A 7 game series where you can hone and fine tune matchups and break down opponents methodically is much different than playing one team on one night and a completely different team the next.

I think the Heat put a major target on their back this season... and that's hurting them badly. They aren't getting blown out of the water in any game either. That's telling of what's to come. It's going to take teams a lot to bring the intensity they bring in single games in the regular season to 7 games in the playoffs. In short, while a regular season sweep is impressive, if I'm Chicago or Boston, I want nothing to do with Miami in May and June.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/9/2011 8:19a).]

I'm a lebron hater. make no mistake about it.

however...Spoestrararara is not taking enough of the blame here. Wade is fantastic. he's just not getting the ball enough IMO, especially late in games. their offense is atrocious, and he's not got them playing enough consistent defense at a high level (sure you'll get the outstanding block or transition game here or there). *insert Miami Heat Scarface .gif here*

and i think Bosh has been overrated since he got in the league.

He should have signed with the Bulls.

I'll agree Bosh has been slightly overrated throughout his career. However. To go along with your first point, the offense is in shambles. It has just as much to do with coaching as it does the pieces.

Having LeBron and Wade on the same starting five still hasn't proved cohesive. It's just a trade-off of who gets the shots on whatever random night. As such, Bosh is being completely under-utilized. He hangs his hat on his offense and he's not getting any looks. He rarely gets any plays run through him.

It really reminds me of Yao Ming's early career. Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley will take all the shots. Yao, just get what you can from what's left over.

But again. They should have seen this coming. Chemistry off the court doesn't translate to chemistry on it.

this might be the dumbest statement ever, but I think Lebron thinks he better than he really is. The guy is an amazing player, but is not a go to guy and is a terrible shooter. "If" you told him the only shots he could take were driving to the basket types, this team would be totally different.

They don't have a legit 4 inside. Bosh never posts up to contract the defense. He plays much more like a shooting guard with all his jump shots.

It probably isn't the dumbest ever... but close. Not a go-to guy? The dude led a Cavs team to a Finals whose second best player was Drew Gooden.

quote:

---

They don't have a legit 4 inside. Bosh never posts up to contract the defense. He plays much more like a shooting guard with all his jump shots.

---

They don't run those plays for him. It's either pick-and-pop or isolation plays for LeBron or Wade. Not saying Bosh is Dwight Howard on the inside, but he's definitely not incapable of playing down low.

quote:

---

Not necessarily 100% descriptive of the reality of the situation, but interesting nonetheless.

---

This pretty much was my point. Everybody tried to insist that the difference between this year's Cavs and last year's Cavs is proof positive that Lebron's supporting cast was no good. But there are so many more variables in play than just "with" and "without" Lebron, that the comparison is fairly meaningless.

Great teams are great teams NOT because of the summation of individual talent, but because everybody knows and accepts their role, everybody accepts responsibility for their role, and everybody trusts everyone else's ability to carry out their part. Great team leaders can facilitate that cohesion. Lebron is not a great team leader, and regarding why the Cavs never won a championship, he requires JUST AS MUCH BLAME as his supporting cast. There were plenty of good role players in play for the Cavs, but identity and cohesion were never established.

It appears to me that, along with his talents, Lebron has taken this little pattern with him to South Beach.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/9/2011 10:12a).]

Truth is, it's somewhere in the middle. I know we've debated this before. I think you somewhat undestand the NBA... and I'm pretty sure if you are an avid fan of the NBA and watch a lot that you know it takes a lot of talent, luck, AND chemistry to win an NBA title in the current NBA. This especially rings true in today's NBA with the 'super teams' and all. If the Heat don't get it done this season, the story on Lebron is still going to be he can't win the big game and is a terrible team leader. But what that'll ignore is that the Knicks, Bulls, and Magic all, like the Heat, made incredible improvements to the talent of their teams in the last year as well.

From your team argument, the same could be said about the Cavs and their ridiculous losing streak re: lack of team leadership when Lebron left.

quote:

---

It probably isn't the dumbest ever... but close. Not a go-to guy? The dude led a Cavs team to a Finals whose second best player was Drew Gooden.

---

I agree with Piag.

Lebron is an amazing physical specimen...but Ive never considered him a very clutch player.

His game is predicated on him being this physical bulldozer of a player that physically bigger and stronger then almost any other player.

But...Im not surprised when i watch the Heat play and Lebron always seems to miss big shots at the end of games.

I dont consider him the late game crunch time shooter of a Kobe, Dirk, Ray Allen, Paul Peirce or Steve Nash.

Those guys scare me a hell of a lot more at the end of a game then Lebron does.

quote:

---

I think you somewhat undestand the NBA

---

Can I write that down and stick it to my fridge?

quote:

---

But what that'll ignore is that the Knicks, Bulls, and Magic all

---

The Bulls have an incredible leader that is also their best player and a phenomenal athlete who also happens to be moving into his prime. Take them out, and tell me, what percentage improvement have the other two teams seen in W/L after the addition of all the new talent?

quote:

---

From your team argument, the same could be said about the Cavs and their ridiculous losing streak re: lack of team leadership when Lebron left.

---

This is where we probably won't ever see eye-to-eye. 1) Lebron is not the only thing different from year 1 to year 2, so it is an entirely uncontrolled experiment to judge his supporting cast by looking at last year versus this year. Shaq is gone. West is gone. Verajao, Williams and Jamison have been injured in some combination most of the year. The coach is new. The system is new. You've got a bunch of rookies and former journeymen trying to keep the tent nailed down and no cohesion in place because almost the entire team is new. 2) No matter his leadership skills, when you have a player who commands control of every facet of the game, and then you take him away from a team, there will be a void which will be difficult to fill. It is my opinion that if Cleveland had built some trust and cohesion amongst the role players while Lebron had been there, they not only would have had a better team THEN, but they would have a better team NOW.

San Antonio is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Tim Duncan is not only on the downhill, but he isn't even really all-star quality anymore. Ginobili no longer has great lift in his legs and has become primarily a jump shooter. Parker and Ginobili are the only legitimate "stars" on that team, and nobody would probably fight with me if I said Lebron has more talent in his left nut than both of those guys combined. Yet, here we are, towards the end of the season, and San Antonio is coasting to a #1 seed in the entire playoffs, and beating Lebron, Wade and Bosh like a rented mule.

Explain that to me using your "talent is king" model.

All other things equal, obviously I want more talent. But given a choice between a group of highly talented players, and a group with a little less talent but much better chemistry, I'm taking the team with chemistry every time.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/9/2011 11:40a).]

Mass, you are insinuating that last years Cavs team was better than this years Heat team, and that Lebron was not the reason last years Cavs team was good and is the reason this years Heat time is not as good.

Does not make sense.

Can't say the Cavs were good despite Lebron's leadership and the Heat are bad because of Lebron's leadership.

Garnett, Allen, and Pierce won a championship in year 1, but they came out of a much weaker Eastern conference than what there is now.

I think Spoelstra sucks, and they are definitely having some cohesion problems on offense and interior defensive problems.

In my opinion, they would do much better running a more euro-style offense instead of so much of the iso they do now. The iso sucked when Brown did it with Lebron in Cleveland and it sucks now. It works until the games get serious and people actually play defense.

You asked:

quote:

---

Explain that to me using your "talent is king" model.

---

What I actually JUST said:

quote:

---

and I'm pretty sure if you are an avid fan of the NBA and watch a lot that you know it takes a lot of talent, luck, AND chemistry to win an NBA title

---

I've never said talent is king... I HAVE said it's damn important and will stick to that. Congrats on the Spurs coasting to the #1 seed for the playoffs. I think San Antonio has LOADS of talent, but definitely isn't the most talented team in the league. To succeed in the playoffs, you need a lot of chemistry AND a lot of talent. Bottom line. Winning in the regular season is one thing and much easier to do than in the playoffs. I heard an analogy not long ago that I strongly agree with:

Let's say you go to a gym to play pickup ball... and there's that group of old guys who have played together for years. They get challenged by the 5 most talented guys in the gym. The old guys might win most of the time in a single game. But if those guys play 5 games in a row? Slowly, the talented dudes will start winning. Why's that? Because as a unit, those 5 guys start to figure out a way to win together against the 'chemistry' team and what those guys know best. Chemistry wins games... but gaps in chemistry can and will eventually be closed. Gaps in talent? Not so much.

The records might not indicate it, but let's not play dumb here, the Knicks and Bulls have BOTH become much more talented teams this season.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/9/2011 12:38p).]

I think Spoelstra is going to be the fall guy, but I don't think any coach will get that team to play and win together until LeBron starts listening more to the coach and less to Maverick Carter and the rest of his buddies.

Wasn't Coach K ready to send him home from the 2008 Olympic team because LBJ would turn his back on him and wasn't listening?

I think erik spoelstra is a horrible coach

quote:

---

Mass, you are insinuating that last years Cavs team was better than this years Heat team, and that Lebron was not the reason last years Cavs team was good and is the reason this years Heat time is not as good.

---

No, I'm not. I'm just testing the theory that the value of Lebron's supporting cast in Cleveland can be estimated by the difference in wins between this year and last. Lebron was a big reason they won 61 games last year. He's also a big reason that 61 wins was the extent of their success.

People give Lebron a "pass" because of this "he didn't have a good supporting cast in Cleveland" B.S. Well, now he's got the supporting cast, so that pretty much blows that theory out of the water.

My thesis is that NEITHER team had/has much playoff potential because of the fact that Lebron is a chemistry cancer and a poor team leader. The fact that Cleveland is bad this year is a consequence of Lebron being gone, but also all the other things I mentioned which everybody else seems to want to ignore.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/9/2011 1:19p).]

I'd like to jump in here.

The Spurs are nowhere near the most talented team in the NBA, but they're by far the most team-minded and the most cohesive.

I'd take them over any team in the league in a 7 game series. The biggest threats are the Lakers and Celtics, both of whom are more talented than the Spurs. But on most given nights, the Spurs will play much better team ball than either of those teams.

Take a look at the box score from the Lakers-Spurs game. 4 Lakers in double digits.

Now look at the Spurs-Heat game. 8 Spurs in double digits. EIGHT. All of whom can be expected to contribute significant points on any given night, if need be: big 3, RJ, dejuan, bonner, hill, and neal.

quote:

---

The biggest threats are the Lakers and Celtics, both of whom are more talented than the Spurs.

---

I would argue that the Lakers are just about on par with the Spurs when it comes to team cohesion and chemistry. They have well-defined roles (Lamar Odom and Derek Fisher are pretty much poster-children for effective NBA role players) and they have a leader that holds everyone INCLUDING HIMSELF accountable. I'd probably take the lakers in a 7-game series just because of the talent difference, but we're talking about all other things equal.

You could say the same about the Celtics. Through the "big 3" years they have had some tremendous role players who were very good at playing a part on the team without having to be "the guy" (Rondo is the best, but Powe, Perkins, Tony Allen, and Posey have all been good.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 3/9/2011 1:31p).]

I would also argue that the Lakers and pre-trade Celtics have probably just as much team chemistry as the Spurs. Jury is still out on Boston's move, though.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

im not a heat fan, but the heat will be fine. People said the same crap when the lakers got ass pounded by the bobcats

Except the Lakers have actually won something before.

wade won a title before too...

I think the Knicks could make a good run at it this year if they really start to mesh together. If not next year for sure

quote:

---

I would argue that the Lakers are just about on par with the Spurs when it comes to team cohesion and chemistry. They have well-defined roles (Lamar Odom and Derek Fisher are pretty much poster-children for effective NBA role players) and they have a leader that holds everyone INCLUDING HIMSELF accountable.

---

Very true, but let me ask you this... don't you find it funny that Kobe was was pretty notorious for complaining about his teammates and being an ahole in the lockerroom... until Pau Gasol arrived? Weird how 'chemistry' really started to work for the Lakers again after Pau arrive, ya know?

You say teams win because they find their chemistry. I say talent plays just as large if not a little bit larger of a role. Even go back to Allen, Pierce, Garnett. All of them career playoff flounders and not really known for being outstanding leaders. Then they unite and all of a sudden, they find this amazing 'chemistry', win it all, and have become the poster child for what takes a great team? Spare me... it has as much, if not more, to do with 3 perrenial top 25 NBA players coming together and dominating the league with their superior skills and athleticism.

Chemistry is important and all, but you aren't winning it all without a LOT of talent. Not anymore.

In short, I want to see the Heat face up to teams in a 7 game series. If the Bulls are playing like they are now, they'll admittedly be a tough beat. That said, I think it speaks miles to the chemistry vs. talent theory and how NBA execs feel about it when Danny Ainge (one of the league's best execs) just put a lot of their chemistry on the line for their maybe 1 more season window for a title to bring in pieces to matchup better with the Heat.

If you let guys play together often and enough, chemistry and cohesion can and will be found. And much easier than you'll find outright skill and talent.

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/10/2011 7:14a).]

quote:

---

My thesis is that NEITHER team had/has much playoff potential because of the fact that Lebron is a chemistry cancer and a poor team leader.

---

The Cavs had a lot of success under Lebron, they just didn't win an NBA title. Is Dirk a chemistry cancer or poor team leader?

The Celts were the last team to have 3 stars join up, they won the ship in year 1. But, they also faced a less top heavy league, in my opinion. The Lakers made it out of the West and they had just acquired Gasol a few months earlier.

Lebron will win multiple championships. Either he or Wade will have to become a better jump shooter though.

quote:

---

The Cavs had a lot of success under Lebron, they just didn't win an NBA title. Is Dirk a chemistry cancer or poor team leader?

---

You are sort of hitting the nail on the head with my thoughts on the whole 'chemistry' concept and what it's perceived to be in the NBA vs. the reality of what the actual building blocks for it are and how it's constructed. Hell, if you watched last season's Rockets, that team played very cohesive team basketball. But they weren't a playoff team because their players just weren't that high caliber.

It's easy to cherrypick top notch NBA teams and say now THAT'S great chemistry... but they all happen to be pretty loaded with talent. One thing that's yet to be pointed out is that a role player doing his thing is MILES easier on offense when you have guys who are elite finishers and shooters around you (Rondo). Also, being an exceptional post defender becomes much more of a breeze when you don't have to worry about the opposing teams PF crashing the boards or wreaking havoc on your weakside (Perkins).

[This message has been edited by ATM9000 (edited 3/10/2011 7:36a).]

quote:

---

You are sort of hitting the nail on the head with my thoughts on the whole 'chemistry' concept and what it's perceived to be in the NBA vs. the reality of what the actual building blocks for it are and how it's constructed. Hell, if you watched last season's Rockets, that team played very cohesive team basketball. But they weren't a playoff team because their players just weren't that high caliber.

---

Explain the 2007 Spurs. Not a super talented team, but 1 superstar, 2 guys who have made all-star teams and lots of good role players.
Explain the 2004 Pistons. Not a single superstar player but a great coach and a very solid team concept.
Explain the Rockets in the mid-90's.
Explain the pistons in the late 80's.

You're acting like I'm saying you don't need talent. You DO need talent. But having a lot more talent than everyone else is not a necessity. Having better chemistry IS a necessity. You can have all the talent in the world and it means nothing if you don't have chemistry. There are plenty of examples of less talented teams that have won championships. To my knowledge, there are NO examples of teams that have won without good team chemistry and well defined roles.

And I would also disagree with you that there is a disconnect between what you are calling "reality" and what you are calling "perception". Almost everybody thinks the way you do, that if you acquire enough talent, chemistry is of secondary importance. Why do you think everybody is so intrigued by the 2010-2011 Heat? On paper, this looks like a team that ought to be tearing up the league, and most everybody thought that if you put those three guys together they'd instantly be an NBA finalist.

quote:

---

To my knowledge, there are NO examples of teams that have won without good team chemistry and well defined roles.

---

2006 Miami Heat.

quote:

---

Explain the 2007 Spurs. Not a super talented team, but 1 superstar, 2 guys who have made all-star teams and lots of good role players.
Explain the 2004 Pistons. Not a single superstar player but a great coach and a very solid team concept.
Explain the Rockets in the mid-90's.
Explain the pistons in the late 80's.

---

Those are the exceptions.....not the rule.

One of my absolute favorite nuggets about the NBA is this.

In the 13 years sandwhiched in between Detroits 1990 and 2004 championship their were 13 NBA champions.

From 1991 until 2003 the team that won the NBA championship.......was the team with the best player.

Star power means more in the NBA then any other sport.
Yes you can point to the Pistons of the late 80's and 2004....but they are exceptions.

The Spurs have never been that talented....but Tim Duncan is an all time great player.....same with Hakeem Olajuwon.