Okay, so reading between the lines, lots of people seem to be concerned that Thomas will take playing time from smart. And, he will.
Bottom line is, smart needs to be good enough. If he isn't, he isn't.
Eh you can be a great player and have your development stunted by being put into a minor role or just kept from handling the ball much, etc. etc.
I think Smart will have plenty of opportunities, but players don't succeed or fail entirely on their own talent. Fit, coaching, and enviroment matter a lot.
Disagree wholeheartedly. "Great" players succeed no matter what. As they say, cream rises to the top. It's the specialist role player types that depend heavily on the situation.
So what will smart be? If he's the star many want him to be, then thomas is insignificant. If he isn't, then I see the concern.
Great talents fail all the time, often until they find the right coach or situation. Enviroment and opportunity matter a lot, and when you're dealing with high stakes situations like the NBA you need to maximize a talent's chances.
It is hindsight silliness of saying that all great players succeed no matter what because you know they're great because you've seen them be great. So of course they'd have been great anywhere.
I can think of maybe a handful of "great" players that bounced around before becoming great. Maybe Chauncey Billups. Who else?
Every one else that bounced around and became good NBA were not great themselves, just in great situations. So the question is, what do we think Marcus Smart will be? A consistent all-star? A fringe all-star? Well then, he should get there regardless of Thomas.
People act like NBA players only grow in games. These guys are practicing all the time. Coach sees these guys more than they would care to mention and they know exactly what they can andc can't do. They also know exactly what kind of potential they have and can reasonably predict where they will go.
So if smart is that star player many are hoping for, the little bitty Isaiah Thomas should or cannot stand in his way. Period, point-blank, end of story.
You watch much NBA?
Because a lot of people told Hassan Whiteside that his story had ended also.
Hassan Whiteside is not a great player; he's a role player with half a season under his belt. Is that what you expect of smart?
Steve Nash was going to be a very good player but went on to be a two time MVP and top 50 all time player. All because he switched systems and became the focal point.
You want to say every player is predestined for greatness no matter what their situation is. That seems pretty narrow minded.
Okay, so we've come up with a grand total of two players so far.
Lowry was just a nice player for Houston. He now is an all-star and has benefitted from an expanded role. He never would have gotten the opportunity to have this role in the same backcourt as Harden.
Jeremy Lin became a fringe all star player when given an opportunity in Mike Dantoni's system. He was over-rated but it still shows you that players who are assigned little value, can be very good players in the right system that fits their strengths.
And for every Lowry and Lin or Whiteside, there are plenty of others who we probably never saw their full potential.
Kyle Lowry has basically improved incrementally for his entire career. He did not go from bench warmer or hidden gem to star. Sure Harden would limit Lowry's role in Hou. But Harden is a star so he would do that to most players. Are we suggesting that Thomas is such a star that he will limit smart? My point is, if he is, then smart isn't that good (because thomas is certainly not great).
As for Lin, the dude sucks. He had two good weeks a few years ago. He proves nothing in this argument, except that role/marginal players need a system to succeed. At the end of the day, you have to good enough to compel the team to build around you.
So again, if smart is as good as he's supposed to be, thomas is no issue. If he isn't, then I see the concern.
