Warriors are a good team with out Curry- But The Greatest Team of All Time WITH Curry

[I know you are]

Make playoffs? bro they would win 55 games and be top 3 seed in the west

Yep, but still an 18 win difference.

[LAZERUSS]

This

A team doesn't set a record for wins merely because of one player. The rest of the team has to be great also. Having a superstar who had a season like Curry's does take the team to that all time great level though.

Agreed.

The '70 Knicks won two of the last three games of the Finals...all basically without MVP Reed.

The '80 Lakers routed the Sixers on the home floor in the clinching win...with MVP Kareem watching the game from his couch.

The '94 Bulls were an injury-riddled team that still went 55-27, and were a blown call away from, at a minimum, of advancing to the ECF's, where they would have had HCA and been favored. And in the ECSF's, MJ's "replacement" averaged 7 ppg.

[ClipperRevival]

Agreed.

The '70 Knicks won two of the last three games of the Finals...all basically without MVP Reed.

The '80 Lakers routed the Sixers on the home floor in the clinching win...with MVP Kareem watching the game from his couch.

The '94 Bulls were an injury-riddled team that still went 55-27, and were a blown call away from, at a minimum, of advancing to the ECF's, where they would have had HCA and been favored. And in the ECSF's, MJ's "replacement" averaged 7 ppg.

What a sad existence. You're sole purpose on this board is to bring down other greats to Wilt's level.

[ClipperRevival]

And OP is 100% correct. There are levels to teams. There are the 3-4 teams that can legitimately compete for titles and a level below that, teams that win about 52-55 games but just aren't good enough to beat the truly elite teams.

Curry and MJ were the difference between a 52-55 win teams and GOAT level, dynastic teams. If anyone can't see that, I don't know what to say.

Also, it's very common for teams that don't have their superstars to play above their level for a short period of time. But we don't know how they would fare if teams had time to truly game plan against Klay and Dray (Yes, i can admit they would be about a 50-55 team without Curry). Like I remember when Kobe was out a few games in 2010, the Lakers went like 4-1 and had huge wins in Utah and Portland and they seemed to be the better team. But that is fools gold. Sometimes when your star is out, it galvanizes guys and they just play a bit harder.

[sd3035]

Fixed...

not sure if senile of trolling.

In either case.............................

[hold this L]

And OP is 100% correct. There are levels to teams. There are the 3-4 teams that can legitimately compete for titles and a level below that, teams that win about 52-55 games but just aren't good enough to beat the truly elite teams.

Curry and MJ were the difference between a 52-55 win teams and GOAT level, dynastic teams. If anyone can't see that, I don't know what to say.

Also, it's very common for teams that don't have their superstars to play above their level for a short period of time. But we don't know how they would fare if teams had time to truly game plan against Klay and Dray (Yes, i can admit they would be about a 50-55 team without Curry). Like I remember when Kobe was out a few games in 2010, the Lakers went like 4-1 and had huge wins in Utah and Portland and they seemed to be the better team. But that is fools gold. Sometimes when your star is out, it galvanizes guys and they just play a bit harder.

It's weird and rare to find a fan of an old school great that can appreciate new greats here, so props to you.

[warriorfan]

And OP is 100% correct. There are levels to teams. There are the 3-4 teams that can legitimately compete for titles and a level below that, teams that win about 52-55 games but just aren't good enough to beat the truly elite teams.

Curry and MJ were the difference between a 52-55 win teams and GOAT level, dynastic teams. If anyone can't see that, I don't know what to say.

Also, it's very common for teams that don't have their superstars to play above their level for a short period of time. But we don't know how they would fare if teams had time to truly game plan against Klay and Dray (Yes, i can admit they would be about a 50-55 team without Curry). Like I remember when Kobe was out a few games in 2010, the Lakers went like 4-1 and had huge wins in Utah and Portland and they seemed to be the better team. But that is fools gold. Sometimes when your star is out, it galvanizes guys and they just play a bit harder.

good post

[Quickening]

And OP is 100% correct. There are levels to teams. There are the 3-4 teams that can legitimately compete for titles and a level below that, teams that win about 52-55 games but just aren't good enough to beat the truly elite teams.

Curry and MJ were the difference between a 52-55 win teams and GOAT level, dynastic teams. If anyone can't see that, I don't know what to say.

Also, it's very common for teams that don't have their superstars to play above their level for a short period of time. But we don't know how they would fare if teams had time to truly game plan against Klay and Dray (Yes, i can admit they would be about a 50-55 team without Curry). Like I remember when Kobe was out a few games in 2010, the Lakers went like 4-1 and had huge wins in Utah and Portland and they seemed to be the better team. But that is fools gold. Sometimes when your star is out, it galvanizes guys and they just play a bit harder.

No chit, remove the best player from a team and they aren't historic anymore... remove Pippen from the Bulls team and they aren't historic anymore.

If a team loses their best player but can still win 55 plus games and be a contender, it just highlights the strength in depth that team has.

Most contending teams who lose their best player would struggle to get 40 wins.