If Westbrook will not commit, then Boston is clearly the superior option vs OKC.
The risk of what the team will be without Westbrook is too great.
even if Westbrook commits, that team is super overrated. Without durant they will struggle to make the playoffs. They were in the lotto a year ago when durant was hurt. Garbage supporting cast aside from Adams.
I was just watching an ESPN clip featuring a panel of 5 people, and the majority opinion is that Boston, with Horford and Durant, would be no better than OKC with Westbrook and Durant, but I disagree.
I admit to wearing green goggles, but I think Boston's primary supporting cast of IT, Crowder, Smart, and Bradley is better than Adams, Kanter, Waiters, and Oladipo.
The panel is likely made up of idiots.
That team has a losing record over the past two seasons when Durant sat. In 2014-15, they failed to make the playoffs despite Durant playing in 27 games. It's a mismatched group that doesn't really have chemistry. They fell short for a reason. KD has carried them. And without KD, they will struggle to make the playoffs.
The mistake people make when considering Oklahoma is that they look at their success (WITH Durant) and assume that means they are a great team. As I said, that team has a losing record without Durant. Consider that LeBron James once won 66 games with Mo Williams as the 2nd best player on the Cavs. Superstars can get you 55+ wins. Durant is a superstar. You take Durant off that team, it's garbage. I've been saying for months now - Durantless Boston is better than Durantless Thunder. So consider what Durant would do with our vastly superior supporting cast.
Westbrook is a flashy player and puts up boatloads of stats, but he's overrated as hell. People love him for the same reason people loved Iverson. All heart. He puts it all out there. He is exciting to watch. But that dude is a ball dominating inefficient chucker who shoots 29% from three and only shot 43% the year Durant was limited due to injury. Durant's impact helps his efficiency. Imagine Durant playing with someone like Bradley (45%/36%), Crowder (44%/34%), and Thomas (43%/36%)... not to mention Al Horford (51%/34%)... all of which are better three point shooters than Westbrook and will see a rise in efficiency with a superstar like Durant commanding attention. It's already been stated that Bradley and Crowder shot 38% on set three pointers. These guys would flourish with Durant. Westbrook shot 7-21 in the deciding game against Golden State this season. He's not a good fit next Durant. He never has been. Talent will get you only so far... at some point players need to actually compliment each other well. Also, while Westbrook gets a lot of assists, he's all the way down to 28th in assist-to-turnover ratio and his usage rate is the highest in the entire league. That dude is overrated. Period. Oh, did we forget to mention that Westbrook already has a foot in Los Angeles? He's always smelled like a Laker to me.
And while everyone goes nuts over the fact that Westbrook is a "superstar" and Durant needs to stay with him because he's a "superstar", they show no understanding of how the NBA game actually works. At some point, there's a cap on how much offense a team can handle. Look no further than Kevin Love in Cleveland. Love on his own is capable of leading an offense and scoring 26+ points per night. Stick him on a team with other ball-dominating players (LeBron and Kyrie), and Love is relegated to standing in the corners waiting for three point shots. Too much offense isn't necessarily a good thing. Having talent that actually compliments one another matters. Isaiah Thomas is a fantastic offensive player. Durant is an elite offensive player. Al Horford is a versatile offensive player. Bradley and Crowder can both flourish next to Durant.
And while the media goes ga-ga over name star-power they ignore the fact that Boston's team is filled with defensive superstars. There's two aspects of the NBA. Boston's guards were incredible on defense. Avery Bradley is a 1st-Team All-Defense. Marcus Smart is an otherworldly offensive player who continues to improve. Jae Crowder is a beast defensively. Al Horford is one of the best defenders in the league. Even our rookie, Jaylen Brown, projects to be an excellent defender. The great thing about that side of the ball is that there isn't a cap on how much elite defense you can have. Whereas there's only one basketball and having too many scorers has a ceiling, you can never have too many defenders. They just feed off each other and make the team defense even better. This team, barring a major injury or some fluke, should easily be a top 3 defensive team next season. While everyone is losing their minds over big name talent, they ignore the fact that Boston is an elite scorer away from seriously threatening to take the title. As-is they had enough defensive firepower to give Golden State a harder time than any team in the league during the regular season.
Much has been made of the Ibaka/Oladipo trade, but that's an overrated move as well. Oladipo plays the same position as Westbrook. Last year he lost his starting role in Orlando. There's a reason they got rid of him. He was another ball-dominating player who became a black hole offensively for that team. It wasn't successful. They found they were better off having a guy like Evan Fournier playing SG (46%/40%) and playing guys like Aaron Gordon and Hezonja more minutes. Oladipo became the odd man out for a reason. He's a chucker. It wouldn't be fun for Durant to play with two Westbrooks.
Durant is arguably the most offensively gifted player in the NBA. He needs to be on a team where the ball flows through him and surrounding by players that compliment him. Bradley, Crowder, Thomas and Horford compliment him. And that team has a chance to be defensively the best in the entire league. It's like people forget that in 2008 our offense was actually pretty mediocre (11th in the league). Defensively, we dominated. Defense matters.
Interestingly enough, Boston was top 5 last season in PPG without HOrford or Durant. Defensively, we were top 13 (better than both OKC and Golden State), but should make a major leap next season as-is, and we'd threaten to be top 3 in both offense and defense next season with Durant on board.
I firmly believe Durant would have a better chance to win in Boston than he does in that terribly managed Oklahoma team. He's been carrying a lotto team over there. He'd be joining a Celtic team that projects to win 50+ without him.
As for Golden State... yeah, going there makes them the favorites, but really that team has nowhere to go but down. They aren't winning more than 73 games next season. It's already Steph's team. Durant would look anticompetitive. Fans are already turning on the Warriors. Going there would damage his reputation and likely hurt his career long-term. He'd just be helping Under Armour's guy stay on top. It's a bad decision all around.
Spurs are whatever. Most boring dynasty ever. I nearly just fell asleep even typing about them. That Hawaiian star they have, who is too boring to even remember his name, plays the same position as Durant. If Durant dreams of winning in obscurity, maybe he'd consider going there. Pop is nearly 70 years old. Duncan's got a foot out the door. Most of those guys are old. Aldridge is a year older than Al Horford. He could go there and maybe squeeze a title out of that situation, but someone is going to need to play out of position for that to work. I saw Durant's first professional game ever in Seattle. They tried playing him at SG. It was a disaster. Later, they struggled to find a way to make him and Jeff Green work together. Poor Jeff Green had to play out of position at PF for several years. Durant's been through this before. San Antonio isn't as good a fit as Boston.
Not to mention, Boston is loaded with assets and young guys who will just continue to feed into the roster (or get traded for upgrades) that will continue to improve that team. Also, they have all the key guys under contract on reasonable deals... a year from now when the cap jumps, they'll have money to add ANOTHER max contract player.
Boston is a legit possibility. Sure, maybe he gets goaded into joining that garbage OKC team by those baby-eating Seattle-murdering scumbucket hillbillies that own that franchise, but if he knows what's good for him and Boston's group did their job - he'll be coming to the Celtics where he belongs.
Just my opinion tho.
Want more proof Westbrook is overrated as hell?
2013-14 season. Westbrook was limited to just 46 games. How do you think the Thunder played without him? Well for the season, they won 59 games.
In the 36 games Westbrook missed, the Thunder went 25-11... including a 10 game win streak. That's a 57 win pace in games Westbrook missed.
So if you're following along.
Thunder without Durant over past two seasons = 37 win Pace
Thunder with Durant = 57 win pace
Thunder without Westbrook = 57 win pace
He's been carrying that team. Oh, also... in the season Westbrook was limited by injury, Durant efficiency was as stellar as ever. He also averaged a career high 32 points and 5.5 assists with typical 50%/39%/87% shooting. Whereas, in the season Durant was injured, Westbrook's efficiency dropped to 42% FG and 29% from three without Durant carrying him.
If I was KD, I'd want to get as far away from that ball-dominating future Laker black hole as possible. Westbrook doesn't help Durant's efficiency. His usage is out of control. He doesn't even necessarily help the Thunder win. Durant would better off in an offense built around him (go figure - build an offense around arguably the best offensive player in the world) surrounded by high quality defenders and competent shooters. Not a ball hog who chucks 29% from three.
I sincerely hope part of the 4 hours we had with Durant was spent with Brad showing Durant some advanced analytics that prove just how much he's carrying that THunder team and how weak his supporting cast actually is. That team would struggle to finish above .500 without him.
