If you take the best player of each team...
Who would best team, and who would be in the championship?
I still think the Lakers could be playing for a championship without Kobe, but for the east it will probably be the Hawks, as they don't have 'star' players they have good players.
Wait... You think the Lakers would be playing for a championship without Kobe Bryant? That's crazy...
^ I agree. Too much emphasis is put on Pau Gasol, and people tend to forget how mediocre he was in Memphis. With all the single coverage he gets in LA, he's been looking like a star because of Kobe. So now way LA is this good without Kobe.
I'll say take the best player off Boston (Rondo) and they'll still be respectable.
I think the Celtics would win it all honestly. They'd be without either Paul Pierce or Rondo (depending on who you think is better), but I think they have enough firepower to win a title without their #1 guy.
Pau Gasol wasn't mediocre in Memphis, that was pretty modest churchboy1. He was a great player on a bad team.
They would still be pretty good without Rondo if every other team was without its star. Ray Allen would have to handle the ball more. Tony Allen, Nate Robinson, and Marquis Daniels would all have bigger roles.
Who else you got in the west
OKC.. without Durant
Denver without MELO
Warriors without Ellis
Memphis without Mayo
Kings without Tyreke
JAZZ without Deron Williams
SUNS without Nash
Clippers without Kaman
Minnesota without Jefferson
New Orleans without Paul
Houston without Yao
San Antonio without Duncan
Portland without Roy
Dallas without Dirk
The only other team that would even challenge them are the Mavs.
I think Boston would be the best team. Some people might not agree with me, but Rondo is there best player now. They wouldn't be as good, but they would still be great. They would still have Pierce, Garnett, Allen, and some solid role players. Without Rondo, that's still a championship caliber team.
I will say this take best player off every team, and the NBA becomes much more closer in terms of talent.
They would still be OK with Dragic and Barbosa at point. They are a deep team. Rockets: they would still be without Yao, but they would definitely be a playoff team if every other team was missing their star. They might be a top 3 seed. I agree that the Hawks would be really tough to face. They don't rely on one player. Josh Smith actually has a better plus/minus than Joe Johnson.
Yeah take every star player off every team and LA and boston still have the best teams..with maybe the magic there also...It is not absurd to think LA could win in that scenario
Monta Ellis is not better than Stephen Curry.
The Warriors sucked with their best players available, so the Warriors deserve no mention.
Would the warriors actually be better without having monta ellis jack up his 20 shots a game? lol
Would be trash without KB. TRASH
he shot 45% i dont think he was jus jacking, actually the warriors were pretty damn good with all their players
Gotta be the Lakers, Kobe easily has the best supporting cast in the league, and this isnt a kobe-hate post, he will be the 3rd best player ever when he's done
Its funny, because when you narrow it down it'll probably be the same teams that are playing in the finals right now
Celtics and Lakers
Celts without there best player [imma say Rondo], is still a really good team to me, obviously they'd have a gap at the PG spot bigger then the one in Michael Strahans teeth, but im sure they'd still be pretty good
Nd the Lakers, would be alot worse, but they'd still be good...if that makes anysense...
Not sure about competing for a title, but they'd be a legit playoff team without the Mamba
When you take Kobe off the Lakers, you are losing a lot.. it's also like he's the pg for the team. Don't get it twisted, fish is more like an off-guard. Kobe just does a lot for that team, and the Triangle offense is pretty complex.
I'd say the Celtics. I think with Doc Rivers.. and the veteran leadership, Nate Rob could run the show well enough.
if you take nash off the suns they would completely suck. do you remember how many games amare won with out him? not many nash creates offence for everyone on that team his pass that arent credited to him as passes lead to points. if this were hockey he'd average 25 assists per game. only the mavericks, lakers and maybe the spurs would be good everyone else would be above average.
Remember last year? They lost their TWO star players, not just 1. and they nearly made it to the Conference Finals
You dont get to the finals by just one player, so obviously the lakers and celtics still have a good team t if you took away there superstar(lakers-kobe celts-Rajon) So Id have to go with the same finals, And for all these laker haters on here(im not a laker fan by any means), theyre still a competitive team without kobe, obviously not nearly as good but didnt they go like 9-3 or something without him this year.
Rondo is an average player surrounded by allstars... Teams without their best player is a team that will not be winning any title anyways so it's kinda dumb to even wonder what it will be like... Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, vet teams with better luck that day I would say would win... He plays a few good game we label him the best player on the team if he was on any other team he would be average at best he can't shot, hit fts, defend with toughness, I see better pgs in the league...Rondo is not that good watch in a few years when the 3 are gone Boston gonna be like back then with a "good" player and couldn't win any games
Lakers in the Finals w/out Kobe hmmm interesting.
Fisher is clutch but the rest not really guess La Machine is your SG or Brown.
Can see the Lakers and Celtics in the Finals still.
Not sure how you would put Orlando even in the Conference Finals w/out Howard those 3 pt shooters don't do much by themselves.
Also Kobe the 3rd best player of all-time thats pushing it I think.
Can't be unless you saw Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Oscar and others early in their youth and prime.
I'll leave that debate up to the old timers.
im not understanding the statements about kobe being the third best when hes done, who is in between him and jordan, he will be second, with all his points and all star games and the mvp he won two years ago to go along with his 4 titles, he could realistically win 3 or 4 more titles, statistically he will finish number two, and no matter what, he should never be considered better than jordan
Where do you get 3-4 more rings from its not that easy and if he does win 3 or 4 more rings he's probably better than Jordan.
Doubtful he wins that many more as this is the Lakers team for the next few years.
Fisher will be pushing 37 end of next year and Jackson won't be around for that much longer.
Bynum is another major knee injury from being an after thought.
i dont really think he will win 3 or 4 more but it could happen, hes that great, the LA front office knows what theyre doing, obviously it would be easier with phil jackson but if he goes they will get another good coach like avery johnson or something, and more rings doesnt make you a better player, i dont think bill russell's 11 or robert horry's 7 rings have ever made them a better player than jordan
they are deep as hell and talented to boot....Roy would replaced by 4 guys(Webster,Rudy,Bayless,Batum) They all do a little bit of what B.Roy does by himself...I gotta think the Blazers are looking for the New B.Roy in this years draft....
I don't see the Lakers pulling off another steal like they did with Gasol.
The Bynum pick was smart outside of that they haven't done anything special.
Brown and Fisher fell into their lap.
Also not sure any of these guys have the drive to win like Kobe or Fisher.
Sooner or later they get complacent.
i think the magic would still be a playoff team without dwight. Gortat is one of the best back up centers in the league and can put up 10 and 10 on the regular. Bass would also get more minutes and he is an underrated player.
Same here who da hell is number 2 if kobe is 3 u can argue lebron but that's another story