The game against Detroit where he scored 27 straight points will go down as one of the greatest playoff performances of all time

Here's the thing about Lebron (CLE) and Durant now: Lebron knew it was all up to him the moment he went to Cleveland. He had to lead in shots, scoring, assists, rebounding, etc all season every season.

Durant didn't have to lead in every stat until Westbrook went down in the playoffs. We saw him score a lot of points one game but he didn't have all season to figure out how to carry the role players single handed. I think if Westbrook was injured 2 months ago that Durant would be a different player in the playoffs.

[This message has been edited by ganondorf (edited 5/16/2013 10:37a).]

You can also blame Scott Brooks. I was in total agreement with Barkley last night. Brooks' adjustments are idiotic at times and that goes for in-game and game-to-game.

Durant destroyed the Rockets in the first half of Game 3 of that series because he was allowed to bring the ball up and run the break as the point guard. He is a very good ball handler for his size and his shooting/finishing skills make him impossible to defend. He could either pull up or drive. He also led the break really well.

For some reason, in the second half they took the ball out of his hands and let Reggie Jackson run it to lesser results.

Scott Brooks is the anti-Thibodeaux. As the roster got thinner, his coaching got worse.

Brooks was the perfect coach for educating a young team on professionalism, playing in the league, learning to win, etc.

Now that this team is well past all of that, we need a X's and O's coach, which as much as I like Scott, he's getting abused when it comes to this.

Personally, I'd love for them to bring back Ron Adams, who was on the staff before he went to go work for Chicago.

quote:

---

Are you saying he isn't?

---

No, I definitely consider him a superstar. I think he's a top 5 player in the league actually. OP's phrasing just sort of threw me off. I was 90% sure he was calling Westbrook a superstar but I just wanted to clarify.

quote:

---

In the NBA, you just never know if you are ever going to get back. The Harden trade was idiotic. For as great as Presti has been, if they never win a Championship, it will be because he let Harden go.

---

This post is idiotic. OKC couldn't beat Miami last year, and they wouldn't have beat them this year with Harden, especially without Westbrook.

quote:

---

In the NBA, you just never know if you are ever going to get back. The Harden trade was idiotic. For as great as Presti has been, if they never win a Championship, it will be because he let Harden go.

---

It's been pretty well documented that there wasn't any chance for OKC to keep Harden around after this season. He was asking for too much money and they couldn't afford him. So why not deal him for something in return? I definitely think we got the better end of the deal for sure, but at least they got a decent package for him instead of straight up losing him to free agency

They should've waited to trade him at the end of the season, worst case scenario. Or, they should've amnestied Kendrick "The Zombie" Perkins and gave Harden his money. I'm sure he would've signed for a slight discount to OKC since he could've gotten the extra year on his K.

I know all you Houston fans have a raging hard on for Harden and think that he has just as big of a chubby to play for you, but there isn't a doubt in my mind he'd rather be in OKC and have a chance to actually play for something meaningful other than playoff games to fund Royce White's Xanax prescription.

They got a good haul for Harden in their trade, depending on how Lamb pans out (and I think at the worst he'll be a decent role player). However, if this Westbrook injury happened (which is a huge what if because that game would be entirely different and that scenario probably would've never played out had Harden even played 1 minute of that game), Harden would be even more prominently featured in the Thunder's gameplan and would've played himself up to get an equal or greater trade haul this offseason. Trading him when they did was stupid then and it's just as stupid now.

quote:

---

Pahdz
posted 7:28p, 05/16/13



quote:
In the NBA, you just never know if you are ever going to get back. The Harden trade was idiotic. For as great as Presti has been, if they never win a Championship, it will be because he let Harden go.


This post is idiotic. OKC couldn't beat Miami last year, and they wouldn't have beat them this year with Harden, especially without Westbrook.

---

It's not. The Harden trade was bad for Presti at the time, and now it looks like a disaster. Harden is what, 24 years old? He made the leap to top 10 player this year. How can you possibly just smugly say that the Thunder have no chance to beat the Heat anyway so you might as well trade him? The 4 star players are all young and improving with Ibaka and Harden at great salaries this year. Its a damn shame we didn't get to see how amazing this Thunder team could have been.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 5/17/2013 12:56a).]

Agreed. The way the league is trending, trotting out Westbrook, Harden, KD, Collison, and Ibaka is damn impressive. At that point you just need a capable post defender for spot minutes when you do run into a dominant C. Those guys aren't terribly hard to find for cheap.

It seems like if they would've embraced the same style as the Heat they would've been better off; I think they wanted to field a more traditional team. While that can work (like Memphis), when you have 3 superstars (Westbrook, Harden, KD) and a great player in Ibaka, you roll the dice and see what an "unorthodox" line up can get you.

Also, how much longer will the Heat be this good? Not near as long as the Thunder. Losing Harden hurt a ton.

The Thunder's stars are so young. That group would of been in the conference finals for years. I think you find a way to pay Harden. I don't believe that OKC couldn't make the money situation work.

quote:

---

I know all you Houston fans have a raging hard on for Harden and think that he has just as big of a chubby to play for you, but there isn't a doubt in my mind he'd rather be in OKC and have a chance to actually play for something meaningful other than playoff games to fund Royce White's Xanax prescription.

---

He signed a freaking 5 year extension with the Rockets once the trade went final. Why the **** would you sign a 5 year deal if you didn't want to be there? Pull the stick out of your ass and use some common sense. I understand you clearly have something against Houston, but at least argue with logic.

And I find it fascinating that the youngest team in the league with tons of cap flexibility has nothing going for them other than playing "for Royce White's xanax prescription". Please, go on. I'm intrigued

quote:

---

Why the **** would you sign a 5 year deal if you didn't want to be there?

---

Money. He got the most he could possibly get. You sign it and if you want to switch, you can force your way out later. But when the most money you can possibly make is on the table and there is no possible chance for a bigger deal, you take it.

Trevor Ariza signed a big contract in Houston then wanted out almost immediately. Of course, Ariza was a pretty average player that never should have had that contract, so the feeling was mutual.

Guitar, I respect your opinion, because unlike some of your fellow Spurs fans on this board, you enjoy respectable basketball conversation.

But the Harden and Ariza situations are not at all the same. Harden is on record stating how much confidence he has in Morey to get a championship squad on the floor, and has said multiple times he loves playing for McHale and Houston. Unless something drastically changes, he isn't going anywhere. Ariza was just a frantic replacement for Artest, and unfortunately, since we had nobody else on the roster worth a damn, he was asked to be the star.

quote:

---

But the Harden and Ariza situations are not at all the same.

---

I'm not saying it is, but having a player sign a max contract then be un happy with the situation a year or two later isn't exactly a novel thing in the NBA.

Harden may very well play out his contract for Houston, but signing a max extension doesn't exactly mean what you are implicating it to mean. It was impossible for him to ever get a better deal, so what reason would he have for not signing it?

Compare him to Dwight Howard last year. When we were trying to trade for Dwight, Dwight straight up said he would not sign long term with Houston because he didn't want to be there. Harden could have done the exact same thing if he really wanted to. With him being a free agent the following offseason, it was a guarantee that somebody would throw max money at him. So he didn't HAVE to sign that extension. I get what you're saying, but if he had absolutely no desire to play in Houston, he could have waited to sign elsewhere

The difference between Harden and Howard is that the former isn't a child like the latter.

I think Harden really wants to be a part of something and not feel like he's just a transient, which is why he signed the extension and is vocal in support of his coach and front office.

quote:

---

The difference between Harden and Howard is that the former isn't a child like the latter.

---

Can't argue with that. Agree 100%

Reposting:

quote:

---

The argument is more likely "Harden should have accepted what the Thunder could afford". The cap is 58 mm. Durant/Westbrook make a combined 31.2 mm. Harden's new contract is for 16 mm per, which would put the Thunder at 47 mm in 2011-2012. That leaves them 11 million to fill out the roster, and Ibaka is getting paid 12 mm per year starting in 2012-2013. With their annual salary bumps, that puts the Thunder over 3 million over the cap with only 4 players. The smallest amount of money they can pay (league minimum for rookies) is 500K a pop, which means that filling out a 12 man roster with rookies would put them 7 mm over the cap (65 mm).

Figure that you're realistically going to end up with at least 12 million invested in the "non-big 4" part of the roster and they are 3 mm into the luxury tax... and that assumes that they get rid of Perkins 7 mm per and don't pick up any other posts with a pulse, because decent posts start at 4 mm and go up fast.

Their options were to
lose Ibaka, who is slated to get a very reasonable 12 mm, a premier shotblocker and developing offensive player
lose Durant (no)
lose Westbrook
completely gut their roster outside of Durant, Westbrook, Hardin, and Ibaka, probably only pay 8-9 people and half of them would be rookies or spares
lose Harden

As combo slasher guards, Harden and Westbrook are the closest things to redundant on that list. Do you invest 30 mm in PG/SG and erase your depth or defense, or do you trade the more expensive of your two guards for a quality role player (whose contract is up after this season), a prospect with potential, 3 draft picks, and payroll flexibility?

---

That's a good point Ulrich. Many people will say the Thunder picked Ibaka over Harden, which is not correct. What they did was choose Westbrook over Harden, which is a debatable advantage to OKC (there are some people out there who will NEVER see Westbrook as more than a ball hogging selfish player...which is shame and hilarious all at the same time).

The high salaries of star players killed the Thunder's chances at a superstar trio.

It's very similar to what the Texans are going through. You draft well enough and those guys become stars, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the core together (although the NFL is much more difficult with the hard cap).

quote:

---

What they did was choose Westbrook over Harden, which is a debatable advantage to OKC (there are some people out there who will NEVER see Westbrook as more than a ball hogging selfish player...which is shame and hilarious all at the same time).

---

Westbrook is more than a ball hogging selfish player, but he has a lot to learn about shot selection. He's talented enough to be a lot more efficient.

quote:

---

Westbrook is more than a ball hogging selfish player, but he has a lot to learn about shot selection. He's talented enough to be a lot more efficient.

---

he's said sitting out he's been able to see how the games are played without him, and he specifically mentioned he's seeing spots where taking his wild shots are not good choices. hopefully he heeds his own words

It's always seemed to me that he decides what shot he's going to take when he gets the ball. If he wants to take the free throw line jumper, he's going to take it no matter how out of rhythm it is. If he wants to take it to the rack, he's going to do it even if he has to brick the ball so hard the rebound lands at the free throw line. A little more of a "take what the defense gives" approach would go a long way, because having options of 3 pointer, free throw line pull-up, and dunk/layup combined with insane quickness is a tough problem for the defense to handle.

quote:

---

If he wants to take the free throw line jumper, he's going to take it no matter how out of rhythm it is.

---

You're being a little hard on him I think. You don't think as he's dribbling the ball up the court and seeing his defender backing way the hell off in fear of the drive he can't process in his head "this is a time for the pull up J?"

I didn't say 100% of the time, but that's the shot where you most often think to yourself, "wow, what was he thinking there?" He can always create enough space to get the shot off because he jumps so high, but he still gets out of rhythm on it. You can always tell whether he's going to make or miss that shot before he even releases the ball.

I won't argue with that its a rhythm shot for him, but I normally have no problem with him taking it, especially if his man has sagged way off him. He's a scoring PG, he going to take open shots when they're there sometimes, in lieu of just pulling the ball back and running a play.

It's the times he takes it when he isn't open that are the problem.

Of course, but he's worlds better about that now.

I'm not so sure that he is. Westbrook is so emotionally unstable that opposing PGs are very easily able to get under his skin, and once that happens it's like he's on a mission to light up the box score. The only problem is he'll take crazy, ill-advised shots.

He did it in game 2 of the Rockets/Thunder series. Beverley was being aggressive with him all night, and soon it seemed like he was always trying to take Patrick one-on-one, and he shot 10-26 that night.

I agree that he has improved on his shot selection over the years, but it still has tons of room for improvement. And quite honestly, I think for him it all starts with maintaining a level head while on the court

quote:

---

He did it in game 2 of the Rockets/Thunder series. Beverley was being aggressive with him all night, and soon it seemed like he was always trying to take Patrick one-on-one, and he shot 10-26 that night.

---

On a torn meniscus. I know you're a huge homer, but don't pat Beverley's back too much there like he was the only thing that had something to do with that.

I'm not patting Beverley on the back for his torn knee. I'm saying that Westbrook is a mental midget. A torn knee is an even bigger reason to defer to Durant & Co. more if he is unable to perform at 100%. Once an opponent gets inside Westbrook's head, it's over. Dude has All-American talent, but is often his worst enemy because he can't control his emotions

Or, as I've seen (and you probably haven't since you don't watch OKC the entire season like I do), he absolutely devours an opponent with his ability. It goes both ways.

What athlete hasn't gone into that mode before only to have it backfire? Jordan? We've seen Kobe have those forgettable nights as well. Westbrook just has to limit those times, or, not limit, but realize when it isn't working. It happens fewer instances than it used to.