2016 Olympic Power Rankings

[auris1]

That's my nickname, given to me by the kids I coach. That's why I chose it. If you don't like it tough luck.

This is a forum, anyone can write their own opinion. The point that you are asking people to reconsider arguments, kind of kills the point of people having their own opinion. If you don't like it, then tough luck again. Bye, bye...

Just like that,right ?
Because you coach some kids you possess this all basketball knowledge we all elude ?

[edited] - Levenspiel

[usagre]

I'm not a fan or expert on ice hockey, so I cannot comment on that...
but as far as basketball goes, it's a highly individual sport, where talent shines through much more often than not. This has been proven in history time and time again, when the most talented teams win at least 90 % of the time. It's not the same thing as in soccer or ice hockey, where the best teams often beat the best talent - that's how these sports rules work.
btw, insulting my intelligence won't make yours any more impressive (that's directed to our "expert" CoachZ of course)

They are different and you're right basketball is unprecedented when it comes an individual's ability to dominate. Just look at your avatar as proof, wherever that guy goes you can basically pencil his team in the finals. But a couple of examples.
I have no doubt that the 2004 Pistons would have destroyed the Olympic field as opposed to losing 3 times. And that team had Duncan and Iverson. Or the 2002 Lakers with Shaq and Kobe and bunch of Euro league level players as you called them would have beaten Serbia and others and not lost 3 times. Now the 02 and 04 USA teams were flawed but the talent was still way better top to bottom than those NBA teams.

You can also look at it in these terms. Kyrie Irving is the starting point guard for both the Cavs and USA. But he is more effective and better on the Cavs because there he is a major scoring option, on team USA he is asked to be a playmaker which is not his game. Volume shooters are more effective on their club teams than USA because they are allowed to play their game and flourish. When you have like 4-5 guys with that similar role on the same team they are automatically less valuable and effective.

[CoachZ]

btw, insulting my intelligence won't make yours any more impressive (that's directed to our "expert" CoachZ of course)

Oh snaaaaaaaaaap

46666665.jpg

[madmax]

It's not as outlandish as you think. In hockey the Soviet Union played Canada even in all those Canada Cups. Why ? Because its main 5 man unit played together on the same club team since they learned to skate. The Canadians would throw out the best individual talents in the world and lose or barely win. When on paper it would look like a mismatch.
Further proof is when those 5 Soviet players went on to very undistinguished careers in the Nhl. How is that explained ?
They dominated as a unit, then as individuals accomplished very little and were average players for the most part.
The only thing I would disagree with is that it wouldn't be as emphatic as 90-10. But I would definitely favor the club team.
But as I stated and Coach Z agreed, only in those specific circumstances of limited training time for the all star national teams.

I'm not a fan or expert on ice hockey, so I cannot comment on that...
but as far as basketball goes, it's a highly individual sport, where talent shines through much more often than not. This has been proven in history time and time again, when the most talented teams win at least 90 % of the time. It's not the same thing as in soccer or ice hockey, where the best teams often beat the best talent - that's how these sports rules work.
btw, insulting my intelligence won't make yours any more impressive (that's directed to our "expert" CoachZ of course)

[CoachZ]

It's not as outlandish as you think. In hockey the Soviet Union played Canada even in all those Canada Cups. Why ? Because its main 5 man unit played together on the same club team since they learned to skate. The Canadians would throw out the best individual talents in the world and lose or barely win. When on paper it would look like a mismatch.
Further proof is when those 5 Soviet players went on to very undistinguished careers in the Nhl. How is that explained ?
They dominated as a unit, then as individuals accomplished very little and were average players for the most part.
The only thing I would disagree with is that it wouldn't be as emphatic as 90-10. But I would definitely favor the club team.
But as I stated and Coach Z agreed, only in those specific circumstances of limited training time for the all star national teams.

Just give up man. He probably doesn't understand half of the post anyway. After all, for him Sabonis is a loser and JV is already the greatest Lith center ever.

They keep saying the same thing over and over.

[CoachZ]

Seriously , I would like ask you to reconsider your arguments in this case . Your level of "expertise" just shines through common sense other people are trying to make .
Really annoying . The fact that you chose "coach something " as your nick does not you give you an upper hand in arguments on this forum . If anything , you sound pretentious and stupid .

That's my nickname, given to me by the kids I coach. That's why I chose it. If you don't like it tough luck.

This is a forum, anyone can write their own opinion. The point that you are asking people to reconsider arguments, kind of kills the point of people having their own opinion. If you don't like it, then tough luck again. Bye, bye...

[usagre]

bingo...
and claiming that a team of NBA superstars and other all stars would "definitely lose" to a club team (even as good as Cavs or Warriors for example) is yet another pretentious and unfounded claim coming from a highly pretentious poster Cavs have what - 3 extra class players in LBJ, Irving and Love. All of the others are irrelevant and can be replaced by Euroleague level guys, as they just fill up the roles and play off the main 3 guys. Now Team USA has 12 extra level NBA guys on their roster, who know each other very well from playing together in the NBA during the 82 game season and playoffs. And this guy is trying to claim that 12 superstars and All Stars would lose 90 of 100 games to inferior team talent wise? LMAO

It's not as outlandish as you think. In hockey the Soviet Union played Canada even in all those Canada Cups. Why ? Because its main 5 man unit played together on the same club team since they learned to skate. The Canadians would throw out the best individual talents in the world and lose or barely win. When on paper it would look like a mismatch.
Further proof is when those 5 Soviet players went on to very undistinguished careers in the Nhl. How is that explained ?
They dominated as a unit, then as individuals accomplished very little and were average players for the most part.
The only thing I would disagree with is that it wouldn't be as emphatic as 90-10. But I would definitely favor the club team.
But as I stated and Coach Z agreed, only in those specific circumstances of limited training time for the all star national teams.

[madmax]

Seriously , I would like ask you to reconsider your arguments in this case . Your level of "expertise" just shines through common sense other people are trying to make .
Really annoying . The fact that you chose "coach something " as your nick does not you give you an upper hand in arguments on this forum . If anything , you sound pretentious and stupid .

bingo...
and claiming that a team of NBA superstars and other all stars would "definitely lose" to a club team (even as good as Cavs or Warriors for example) is yet another pretentious and unfounded claim coming from a highly pretentious poster Cavs have what - 3 extra class players in LBJ, Irving and Love. All of the others are irrelevant and can be replaced by Euroleague level guys, as they just fill up the roles and play off the main 3 guys. Now Team USA has 12 extra level NBA guys on their roster, who know each other very well from playing together in the NBA during the 82 game season and playoffs. And this guy is trying to claim that 12 superstars and All Stars would lose 90 of 100 games to inferior team talent wise? LMAO

[auris1]

But that is the main point of the argument exactly. NT competitions and level of play will always be lower than club basketball due to the fact that players give their hearts all year in clubs they get paid and this is what defines careers. Expecting the NTs to produce high level of play with 12 tired players and 5-6 prep games in a system and new coach and surroundings. Then play a tournament of 7-9 games in two weeks. Is just crazy to expect high level of play.

It's not issue of talent or player names. It's an issue of circumstance and reality. Club basketball will always produce higher quality of play, due to those factors. And that is only when we take into account serious medal contenders in NT tournaments. When we take into account teams that everybody wipes their floor with, what the hell is that

Seriously , I would like ask you to reconsider your arguments in this case . Your level of "expertise" just shines through common sense other people are trying to make .
Really annoying . The fact that you chose "coach something " as your nick does not you give you an upper hand in arguments on this forum . If anything , you sound pretentious and stupid .

[CoachZ]

Yeah I was just clarifying. I agree with you completely. The club team has a set offense that it can run in its sleep.
And the greatest advantage in my opinion will be defensively when rotations and cummunication would dwarf that of a newly formed all star team that will rely heavily on pure talent.

Precisely, as well as coaching, where a coach knows all of his players very well and even the tiniest details about their play. He could utilize players much better than the plug and play nature of NT play. I used to get pissed of so much with sloppy rebounding and defensive switching in NT games, then over time I just figured out that it cannot be helped. Those guys don't breathe as one and cannot put the same effort and quality of play. It's also crazy to expect them to.

[usagre]

But that is the main point of the argument exactly. NT competitions and level of play will always be lower than club basketball due to the fact that players give their hearts all year in clubs they get paid and this is what defines careers. Expecting the NTs to produce high level of play with 12 tired players and 5-6 prep games in a system and new coach and surroundings. Then play a tournament of 7-9 games in two weeks. Is just crazy to expect high level of play.

It's not issue of talent or player names. It's an issue of circumstance and reality. Club basketball will always produce higher quality of play, due to those factors. And that is only when we take into account serious medal contenders in NT tournaments. When we take into account teams that everybody wipes their floor with, what the hell is that

Yeah I was just clarifying. I agree with you completely. The club team has a set offense that it can run in its sleep.
And the greatest advantage in my opinion will be defensively when rotations and cummunication would dwarf that of a newly formed all star team that will rely heavily on pure talent.

[CoachZ]

I agree but only under those specific circumstances. A meeting let's say in early July fresh off the Nba finals and with the national team allocated only a couple of weeks of preparation with some exhibition games. I think you would agree that if the national team had 6-8 months of games and preparation therefore enough time to cement player roles and establish cohesion, they would easily beat the club team.

But that is the main point of the argument exactly. NT competitions and level of play will always be lower than club basketball due to the fact that players give their hearts all year in clubs they get paid and this is what defines careers. Expecting the NTs to produce high level of play with 12 tired players and 5-6 prep games in a system and new coach and surroundings. Then play a tournament of 7-9 games in two weeks. Is just crazy to expect high level of play.

It's not issue of talent or player names. It's an issue of circumstance and reality. Club basketball will always produce higher quality of play, due to those factors. And that is only when we take into account serious medal contenders in NT tournaments. When we take into account teams that everybody wipes their floor with, what the hell is that

[usagre]

Cleveland Cavaliers, Warriors, Spurs, OKC would defeat Team USA. No problems. They could play 100 games, and Team USA would lose 90.

Same like 90s Bulls would defeat the Dream Team etc. etc.

Anybody who believes the opposite, lives in a dream world. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, it's better for some people. Otherwise therapy could be quite expensive.

I agree but only under those specific circumstances. A meeting let's say in early July fresh off the Nba finals and with the national team allocated only a couple of weeks of preparation with some exhibition games. I think you would agree that if the national team had 6-8 months of games and preparation therefore enough time to cement player roles and establish cohesion, they would easily beat the club team.

[CoachZ]

When you do not have an argument, what more remains

Cleveland Cavaliers, Warriors, Spurs, OKC would defeat Team USA. No problems. They could play 100 games, and Team USA would lose 90.

Same like 90s Bulls would defeat the Dream Team etc. etc.

Anybody who believes the opposite, lives in a dream world. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, it's better for some people. Otherwise therapy could be quite expensive.

[unnamed]

I gotta see the proof of ID, before I can continue any discussion with you. This is getting crazy

I don't mean to disrespect G&B or anyone here, but when you wrote this I imagined something like this:
http://cdn.instructables.com/FOH/H51...44ZZ.LARGE.jpg