If the Warriors win it all without KD, does that devalue his rings even more?

[DMAVS41]

Not sure if you understood my post.

1. How is making 2 Finals in a row w/o KD make a team a dynasty like tpols suggested??

2. If they're winning w/o KD, then that means they didnt need him to begin with, correct??

I think he said dynasty level team. Which is correct imo. Obviously they weren't a dynasty after just 2 years...nobody is arguing that.

But dynasty level? Meaning that they were going to win and contend for 5 plus years straight? Yea...that was a lock without KD.

Yea, of course they don't need KD. They did win without him and were always going to upgrade Harrison Barnes. They weren't just sitting on a ton of cap and not doing anything with it.

My guess is that if they added a couple of above average rotation players instead of KD...that they'd win 3 titles in 5 years....with KD healthy...I think they are about to win 4 titles in 5 years.

But, again, of course they don't "need" KD...are you actually arguing they do?

[BigShotBob]

They're not winning this year or last year without him.

As another poster said, the Warriors never had an answer for Lebron. KD negated him at worst and outplayed him 2-3 games in each series at best.

It's no coincidence that their only title win was when both Kyrie and Love were injured in 2015.

Though the Cavs won in 2016 against a hobbled Warrior's, the play of Curry and Klay in both game 6 and 7 shows their weaknesses when facing two dynamic scoring threats (Kyrie and Lebron).

In terms of pure scoring Curry and Klay are a tier below Kyrie and Lebron.

But Curry and KD combined are easily the best scoring tandem in the league, a notch or two above even Kyrie and Lebron at their best.

[DMAVS41]

Nobody knows what would have happened or what will happen.

I'd imagine a lot of people would laugh at the notion of the Warriors finishing off the Rockets in game 5 and 6 without KD...and then taking 2 in a row off the Blazers.

Certainly almost everyone would have laughed at the idea of the Warriors going 29-1 without KD and with Steph...and still maintaining a 70 win pace without KD on a pretty large sample size now.

A lot of things are possible...and nobody knows for sure of course.

All the evidence, however, at least for a rational person...would lead one to think that this Warriors core was pretty epic whether Durant was there or not.

[BigShotBob]

Nobody knows what would have happened or what will happen.

I'd imagine a lot of people would laugh at the notion of the Warriors finishing off the Rockets in game 5 and 6 without KD...and then taking 2 in a row off the Blazers.

Certainly almost everyone would have laughed at the idea of the Warriors going 29-1 without KD and with Steph...and still maintaining a 70 win pace without KD on a pretty large sample size now.

A lot of things are possible...and nobody knows for sure of course.

All the evidence, however, at least for a rational person...would lead one to think that this Warriors core was pretty epic whether Durant was there or not.

I will never understand what your point is.

They beat a subpar Rockets team and a (so far) subpar Blazers team.

I assure you they wouldn't be 2-0 without Durant against the Bucks, Raptors, or maybe even the 76ers. So who cares?

Durant isn't needed for the Blazers and to close out the Rockets....again who cares?

Steph wasn't needed for the Spurs or the Pelicans. But again, who cares?

We all know when Durant is needed, and why the Warriors went after him so aggressively after blowing a 3-1 lead, and that's because they have a very exploitable weakness against the juggernaut teams.

And the Rockets this year were not one of them.

Neither were the Blazers or even the Nuggets.

You can bring up "70-win pace" sample sizes all you want, because they won 73 games without Durant....and lost.

Then won 67 games the year after with him....and won.

Then won 58 games the year after that with him.....and won.

So again, who cares? Like what is your point exactly? Please put it in basketball terms, not "The Starters" terms.

[DMAVS41]

My point is simple. This is an elite team without KD. He's not needed. Yes, somebody in his place is likely needed, but he's not. But we don't even know that for sure...because the **** if we can ignore 29-1 without KD.

This shit is just obvious by now.

[BigShotBob]

My point is simple. This is an elite team without KD. He's not needed. Yes, somebody in his place is likely needed, but he's not. But we don't even know that for sure...because the **** if we can ignore 29-1 without KD.

This shit is just obvious by now.

Not needed....for what exactly?

The regular season? Okay....

But they absolutely needed him these past two Finals.

They aren't 29-1 in the Finals without him that's for sure. And that's all that matters and that's why they got him.

You don't know better than the players do. They all admitted that they needed him, but the "great" analytical DownsyndromeMavs over here knows more than KD's teammates I guess.

[DMAVS41]

Not needed....for what exactly?

The regular season? Okay....

But they absolutely needed him these past two Finals.

They aren't 29-1 in the Finals without him that's for sure. And that's all that matters and that's why they got him.

You don't know better than the players do. They all admitted that they needed him, but the "great" analytical DownsyndromeMavs over here knows more than KD's teammates I guess.

You aren't following. I'm not even disputing that they likely don't win last year without KD.

I'm saying that other players in place of KD would also have made them overwhelming title favorites. You keep confusing things. There never even was an option of nobody. It was either KD or someone else. They weren't just letting all the cap go mate.

I'd like to add though...we need to stop pretending like this team as currently constructed straight up without KD isn't a legit title contender. They've proven too much.

Yea, lets just ignore 29-1 and pretend like it is common. We should ignore the title and 73 wins without him as well...right?

[BigShotBob]

You aren't following. I'm not even disputing that they likely don't win last year without KD.

I'm saying that other players in place of KD would also have made them overwhelming title favorites. You keep confusing things. There never even was an option of nobody. It was either KD or someone else. They weren't just letting all the cap go mate.

I'd like to add though...we need to stop pretending like this team as currently constructed straight up without KD isn't a legit title contender. They've proven too much.

Yea, lets just ignore 29-1 and pretend like it is common. We should ignore the title and 73 wins without him as well...right?

No other player besides KD in the league could outplay Lebron in two straight Finals series.

Now I'm not saying that the Warriors specifically got KD for Lebron, but because they happened to face him and his super team they needed a player at Lebron's level.

There was no other player or players at or around Lebron's level in free agency except for Kevin Durant.

And obviously you go after the best player that you can.

I'm saying that "somebody else" these past two Finals wouldn't cut it. Not against Kyrie, Lebron, and Love.

They didn't win the title when they won 73 games. Why bring that up?

They literally won less games with KD but had their best playoff run afterwards.

Again...not 29-1 in the Finals without Durant.

[DMAVS41]

No other player besides KD in the league could outplay Lebron in two straight Finals series.

Now I'm not saying that the Warriors specifically got KD for Lebron, but because they happened to face him and his super team they needed a player at Lebron's level.

There was no other player or players at or around Lebron's level in free agency except for Kevin Durant.

And obviously you go after the best player that you can.

I'm saying that "somebody else" these past two Finals wouldn't cut it. Not against Kyrie, Lebron, and Love.

They didn't win the title when they won 73 games. Why bring that up?

They literally won less games with KD but had their best playoff run afterwards.

Again...not 29-1 in the Finals without Durant.

I disagree.

The Rockets were a much tougher test and I might agree that they needed KD to get by them last year, but again...I can't say for sure.

I think it would obviously been a lot tougher with other players in place of KD, but they'd still be as good or better than anyone depending on the replacement or replacements.

Not sure what you mean about "not 29-1 inf the Finals"....nobody has ever made the claim. That is brought up to illustrate just how good this team is...even without KD.

You aren't impressed, but that means nothing. Again, what other team do you think could lose their "best player" and go 29-1???? Please name a few so I know where you are coming from.

[BigShotBob]

I disagree.

The Rockets were a much tougher test and I might agree that they needed KD to get by them last year, but again...I can't say for sure.

I think it would obviously been a lot tougher with other players in place of KD, but they'd still be as good or better than anyone depending on the replacement or replacements.

Not sure what you mean about "not 29-1 inf the Finals"....nobody has ever made the claim. That is brought up to illustrate just how good this team is...even without KD.

You aren't impressed, but that means nothing. Again, what other team do you think could lose their "best player" and go 29-1???? Please name a few so I know where you are coming from.

I thought PG13 in place of KD on the Thunder would have made them a lot better than they currently are. But they bounced out of the first round twice now so again, who knows. But that's the only other SF that comes even close to KD and Lebron's level and he's still a tier below them both.

Such an arbitrary stat.

You're emphasizing the regular season and sprinkling in what....3 playoff game wins without Durant?

Meanwhile Durant won an entire series without Curry and were on their way to beating the Pelicans without him too.

I'm not going through the annals of history for a dumb statistic like that because then I'd be arguing on your terms when I literally don't care.

Again, they wouldn't have beat the Cavs's super team without Durant because anything can happen - like a suspension or injuries.

Then you have to shut down Kyrie and Lebron and if Curry and Klay go cold for even a second then their offense falls off a cliff and there's no one to stop the bleeding.

Oh sorry, I'm talking basketball with you again. That might be a little too much for you.

[DMAVS41]

You are coming off like a clown that can't follow an argument.

Can you really not comprehend that I'm not arguing that other players could make them as good as KD, but good enough to win the title?

The fact that you keep referencing the Cavs and the finals shows you don't know anything. The Rockets were, by far, the most dangerous team for these Warriors last year and it wasn't ****ing close.

Again, name me some teams that can lose their best player and win at a near 70 win pace on what amounts to nearly a half a season sample. It isn't arbitrary at all...it is the opposite actually...it is winning and losing.

Lastly, do you even watch these games? Do you not see how much the impact of Curry/Dray goes up without KD? You are legit forgetting or are too stupid to realize that everyone sacrifices when you add a player like KD to an already loaded roster.

Curry and Dray specifically can't play at their optimal levels with KD out there consistently.

This shit is obvious to anyone that knows the game at all.

You "talking basketball" is legit repeating moronic ESPN "hot takes" about Kyrie...

[BigShotBob]

You are coming off like a clown that can't follow an argument.

Can you really not comprehend that I'm not arguing that other players could make them as good as KD, but good enough to win the title?

The fact that you keep referencing the Cavs and the finals shows you don't know anything. The Rockets were, by far, the most dangerous team for these Warriors last year and it wasn't ****ing close.

Again, name me some teams that can lose their best player and win at a near 70 win pace on what amounts to nearly a half a season sample. It isn't arbitrary at all...it is the opposite actually...it is winning and losing.

Lastly, do you even watch these games? Do you not see how much the impact of Curry/Dray goes up without KD? You are legit forgetting or are too stupid to realize that everyone sacrifices when you add a player like KD to an already loaded roster.

Curry and Dray specifically can't play at their optimal levels with KD out there consistently.

This shit is obvious to anyone that knows the game at all.

Please name the players not named Lebron. I can only think of three total maybe. And KD and Lebron are the other two.

I brought up the Cavs because they had a big three. But yes they definitely don't get past the Rockets without KD, but CP3 probably doesn't even join the Rockets if KD doesn't join the Warriors, so the Rockets were a monster of their own making.

It's arbitrary because of when it occurs.

The Warriors especially as they are currently constructed have a hard ceiling without Durant because they become far more exploitable against the juggernaut teams (Rockets, Cavs, Bucks, Raptors) could and will beat them without Durant. Point blank period.

Name the players that you could switch with Durant and tell me if the Warriors beat the Rockets last year with that player in their stead.

[DMAVS41]

Please name the players not named Lebron. I can only think of three total maybe. And KD and Lebron are the other two.

I brought up the Cavs because they had a big three. But yes they definitely don't get past the Rockets without KD, but CP3 probably doesn't even join the Rockets if KD doesn't join the Warriors, so the Rockets were a monster of their own making.

It's arbitrary because of when it occurs.

The Warriors especially as they are currently constructed have a hard ceiling without Durant because they become far more exploitable against the juggernaut teams (Rockets, Cavs, Bucks, Raptors) could and will beat them without Durant. Point blank period.

Name the players that you could switch with Durant and tell me if the Warriors beat the Rockets last year with that player in their stead.

Uhhhh....

I'm not arguing the Warriors could for sure beat the Rockets without KD. Again, try reading. I literally already stated that they might have needed KD to get by the Rockets last year. I posted this in response to you.

I don't think you are capable of following a conversation. Hence why you continue to be "confused" as to what my point is.

If you want to know what type of guys I think would really be good for them...it would be guys like Cov / Porter / Tucker / Ingles / Middleton / Crowder / Saric...even guys like Gay / Batum.

No, it is not arbitrary to go 29-1 without your "best player"...you can keep repeating that, but anyone with a brain knows that is insane.

And we know it matters to you...because if the Warriors lose some games...you'll say "oh, see...this proves they need KD"...

[34-24 Footwork]

DMAVS41 going FULL troll

Cant believe this dude is being THIS disingenuous.

This ain't the 73 win team.

They have no bench. No depth. Turnover prone. And they are completely predictable.

A "team" isn't Iggy, Klay, Dray, and Curry.

Imagine hating KD that much. Lol

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS41 going FULL troll

Cant believe this dude is being THIS disingenuous.

This ain't the 73 win team.

They have no bench. No depth. Turnover prone. And they are completely predictable.

A "team" isn't Iggy, Klay, Dray, and Curry.

Imagine hating KD that much. Lol

Another reading comprehension fail.

I've never argued as such. In fact, I've actually said the Warriors without KD are vulnerable even against the Blazers and would be clear dogs against the Bucks.

What I've said was...a player or players in place of KD and they are better than everyone...just not to the extent they are with KD.

This isn't hard guys...get smarter please.