If you took out the best player of each NBA team, what team would still be a contender?
Spurs minus Tim Duncan
( I think the spurs would do the best of all NBA Teams as they have proved it during his recent absence)
Jazz minus Carlos Boozer
( I think they would be decent enough if Deron Williams plays to his potential)
These are just examples, on who i think would do good without their star player!!!
2007-12-08 04:23:41 · 8 answers · asked by Sgt. Pepper 4 in Sports ➔ Basketball
If Boston loses Kevin Garnett then they are not as good!! Thats just my opinion. Or maybe im wrong.
2007-12-08 04:25:44 · update #1
Yes i agree on the Detroit Pistons, they would still be good if they loose Chauncey Billups or even Rip Hamilton.
2007-12-08 04:30:43 · update #2
But it depends who you consider the PHX SUNS best player? What if that current best player is Steve Nash ?
2007-12-08 04:31:58 · update #3
Utah would still be good without Boozer, but if Williams were to miss significant time, they'd struggle.
Phoenix could miss any one player other than Steve Nash and they would fare about the same. Lose Nash, then a 1st round exit from the playoffs would be a reality.
The Spurs are ok in the regular season without Tim Duncan because he doesn't play a ton of minutes on most nights. If Duncan were to miss the playoffs, the Spurs would see a quick exit. If they were to lose any one player besides Duncan, they still would win the title. No Duncan, no ring. ....also
Duncan could lead the league in scoring very easily if that were his desire. He's very ok with 19 ppg and 9 boards in 32 minutes a night. Go back to last year's real NBA Finals when the Spurs played Phoenix..(the league 2nd best team last year) Duncan scored whenvever he wanted to on the player who gives him the most trouble.....(Kurt Thomas) Duncan is still the league's best player bar none.
Detroit have 4 or 5 good players, no stars. Billups, Hamilton or Sheed are stars. If they were to lose any (one) of them, they'd still win about the same. If everyone is healthy, they still wouldn't win the title. They don't have enough defense in the middle to stop a Duncan or Kevin Garnett.
...speaking of KG......
The Celts can win the title if KG, Paul Pierce & Walter Allen remain healthy. If Pierce or Allen were hurt and KG remained healthy, they could still win the Leastern Conference going away. KG and his former team could've done that if they were in the LEast instead of the West.
......last year's Leastern Conference Cha(u)mps.......
The Cavaliers were by far the worst team to ever make it to the NBA Finals. Yes they were worse than the 81 Rockets, who finished the regular season that year 40-42. LeBron should just leave that team, because as long as he's selling out the arena, they'll never get the talent he needs to support his title hopes. They suck really bad. They sucked last year really bad. Duncan played hard for the 1st quarter in Game 1 of the 07 Finals and then passed it off to Parker and Ginobili and probably said "wake me when ya'll finish". I see why Boozer bailed on this organization.
Orlando is too young, I doubt they make it past the second round of the playoffs. (even if evryone is healthy)
Dallas can't win the title. They'll make it out the 1st round if they don't play Denver or Golden State.
Denver/Golden State/Houston all have the talent to win the title, but not the right attitude. One of these will however lose to the Spurs in the 2008 Western Conference Finals. I believe it will be Denver. ...just a hunch....
2007-12-08 05:06:09 · answer #1 · answered by A.Sharrieff 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Phoenix Suns are the best team in that category they got the Western Conference Finals without Amare Stoudemire. I would have to say San Antonio is also good without Tim Duncan. I know Steve Nash is there best player but u said star player the Suns have lots of star players.
2007-12-08 04:30:41 · answer #2 · answered by Antwuan (Giants Superbowl XLVI Champs!!!) 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spurs would be nothing without Tim Duncan
it is very common for teams to hold up slack for a stretch during a superstar's absence but long term they would be nothing without him
to answer the question - Dallas or Detroit - i think Deron Williams is better than Boozer
2007-12-08 04:42:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I also think the Spurs, Tim Duncan is a great player but he doesnt score a ton of points, like a Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson, so its not like they are lacking his scoring. More of a defensive, leadership role. And with him out puts more emphasis on Ginobli who evidently can score plenty.
I also think Dallas would be ok without Dirk for a little while because they are deep and the team seems to step up when he is sick or injured.
2007-12-08 04:32:54 · answer #4 · answered by shady_antics_25 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
guy Utd would be extra effective.. no longer purely coz i'm a Utd supporter, I actually sense, Utd is a extra effective team than Barcelona.. i admire Barcelona.. yet, I dunno, Utd with out Rooney will survive in the event that they wanna truly win some thing.. I recommend, at present, Rooney is substituted for a bigger area of the tournament for restoration.. yet barcelona drew with Espanyol regardless of Messi and Ibra around.. So, i think of Rooney-much less Utd is extra effective than Messi-much less Barca.. nevertheless I mus admit that the two are nicely balanced team with truly some "intensity" in 'em..
2016-11-14 21:43:39 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the pistons because pretty much anyone on their whole starting lineup on any other team could be averaging 20+ppg.
2007-12-08 04:43:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
washington is proving to be even more productive without arenas.
dallas without nowitzi would remain relatively unchanged. might even be better if you put bass in his place. at least they get to play someone on the low block.
2007-12-08 05:11:31 · answer #7 · answered by m33p0 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the pistons they have more then one star player and at this time you need more then one star player to be good
2007-12-08 04:29:07 · answer #8 · answered by stunna 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋