<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 05:42 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jul 16 2008, 03:32 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 02:08 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On anther note... that was a nausiating article by D'Alessandro.
I guess in his world you can only be a competitive team if you have a few assholes on the roster.</div>
I think Dave is just wrong. Having super-talented players certainly helps, but by no means is it necessary to have a winning team. More importantly, having superstars does not guarrantee success. Why did the Heat suck with Wade? Why the the Timberwolves suck with Garnett? Why did the Lakers suck two years ago with Kobe? There are a number of factors that come into play. I don't think the Nets will necessarily be worse this year than last year, but it depends on how well the rookies figure things out.
</div>
Having superstars does not guarantee success, but not having them all but guarantees not winning the big one. One team in 25 years has won without one.
</div>
Pistons would probably be the first to come to mind, they just played good team ball on the offensive and defensive ends. I wouldn't consider Chauncy, Rip or Sheed to be superstars.
Oh now I'm guessing the "One team" is Detroit.
But I mean you could also say, the year before 2007-08. No one considered Paul Pierce a superstar. KG I guess might still have superstar status, but he is kind of a half-superstar compared to Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, and Chris Paul.