Boogie at the Olympics
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
Very atrocious
LPKingsFan
All-Star
This Teodosic has good numbers--how does he look to those of you watching? Might he be Vlade's PG ace in the hole?
Sucks really bad on D, can shoot at leat tonight, but I think he signed with Washington IIRC...or am I thinking of Sardosky?
whoopdeedoo
Bench
Looks good. He seems to know exactly how the US will react on defense and then takes advantage of it.
edit: Doubt he fits what we are going for on defense though.
whoopdeedoo
Bench
Bogs already on team Boogie it seems... 
You're thinking of Tomas Satoransky.
Teodosic is in fact a free agent as far as the NBA is concerned. I think he may have one more year on a contract with CSKA Moscow, but I have no idea if there could be a buyout clause. That said, without any moves to get under the cap we probably don't have the money to sign him (he probably wants more than the room exception) and if reports above of his defense are true...
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
That's two close games in a row for team USA. Anybody still think we should use college kids instead?
whoopdeedoo
Bench
I am not sure how the two correlate, can you enlighten me?
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I haven't paid much attention to the Serbs (I can't help but root for the USA) but I may watch a replay. If there is decent pg on the Serb team, he may be Vlade's solution. In my view, we need a 2nd string pg.
The implication is that if we were to use college kids (i.e., amateurs, as we did until 1992) that we would not be a strong enough team to defeat the likes of Serbia and Australia (who would presumably continue to use professional players).
I'm not entirely sure why the point matters, as I don't think there's any push to use only amateurs, nor do I remember reading anybody suggesting that the U.S. Olympic team should unilaterally revert to amateur players, but that's the point being made.
Define "anybody."
I see the sentiment fairly often; it's just that, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a sentiment that is more common among people who don't regularly watch basketball, and/or #IHateTheNBA guy. I will stipulate that it is uncommon to hear such a sentiment from people who primarily self-identify as NBA fans, such as the majority of our poster base.
whoopdeedoo
Bench
Do you know if the people who feel this way want all teams to only roster college players, or just the USA? I have a hard time thinking of many reasons that only "amateur" athletes competing in the games would be an improvement. And it would be painful to see the discussions that evolved if some nations were using only college kids and others professions.
PurpleHaze
All-Star
Like at 1972 Olympics when USA and USSR met for gold metal and in most controversial game arguably basketball history, Soviets defeating USA by one point. USA with all college players average age 20 against USSR with hardened professional Army league players average age 27. 19 year old Doug Collins hitting last two points for USA apparent one point victory with three seconds left but inexplicably refs not allowing clock to expire as it should have after
inbound. Instead stopping play and winding clock twice more in effect giving Russians three chances to score with three seconds each time. On last bizarre play Russian bear scored to win gold metal in shocking the bewildered American kids.
In my experience, the sort of people who want the USA to stop sending pros to the Olympics in basketball don't really care what the other countries do.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Love our captain but Teo is a defensive liability even in Europe, let alone the NBA. He has great vision, fantastic passer, can be turnover prone and a streaky shooter who has a habit of rising to the occasion. I think he can play in the NBA but that signing would go against our obvious blueprint for the recruits this summer.
John Galt
Starter
I'll cop to being one of those guys. I'm primarily an NBA fan (not College), and I wish we only sent amateurs to the Olympics. And I don't really care what other countries do.
I just don't get a kick out of running over the rest of the world every 4 years with our NBA ringers. It would just be more fun for me to see amateur athletes fight like hell and maybe not win gold all the time. Regardless of whether other countries had "national teams" that were essentially professional - I liked sometimes beating them anyway. It did not need to be proved at the Olympic level that USA professional basketball - the NBA - was the best league in the world. To me it was redundant and boring to "prove it" on the Olympic stage.
And it is an epic and embarrassing fail when our "pro" teams fail to win gold. For me it is a "no win" situation.
Now we can't have moments like when our amateur hockey team beat the Russian pros - and that just is something I miss.. the chance to be astonished by something epic.
But I'm just being stubbornly old-fashioned. On this point and my opposition to Instant Replay officiating in any form/any sport ... I'm pretty much alone
Glenn
Hall of Famer
If we used only amateurs, we would exclude all those guys who had signed a pro contract. I know that is obvious but none of the one and done players who had been drafted could play. It would leave us with an awful team. For instance, from the 4 young guys we drafted, only iCuz could play. That would not be very interesting. I guess if I am going to be bored, and I must say this year has not been boring of late, I'd rather win than get blown out.
I said "nor do I remember reading anybody" - and here I'm going to stick with the dictionary definition of the word "anybody". That doesn't mean it hasn't been written (or said) but I don't remember seeing that argument actually being made...before noticing John Galt make it about two posts up. (Way to blow that one for me, buddy!)
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
You didn't read the entire thread. Someone was complaining that it's "boring" to see team USA blowout other countries by 50 every single game. I countered that it's more boring to lose while not fielding anything close to your best team. It makes no sense to send 18 year old kids up against grown men and seasoned pros. I further argued that by sending your very best you force the rest of the world to catch up to you. The very next day (after I said that) the US trailed Australia by 5 at the half and today they narrowly beat Serbia. I think that shows that the gap has been bridged quite a bit since we first started sending our pros 24 years ago. That's great for the game.
As I said above, it's good for the future of the game. Look how far the rest of the world has come since the original Dream Team in 1992 (24 years). Foreign players such as Dirk Nowitzki have cited that team as a huge influence and setting the bar for them. It could easily be argued that had it not been for the original Dream Team and the US continuing to send it's very best to the Olympics, the growth and improvement around the world wouldn't be at the same point that it is now.
While the US is still the top dog, countries like Spain, Argentina, Serbia and Australia are competing at a much higher level against us.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
Teodosic is not being "discovered". He is probably the best PG outside of the NBA and he won't be coming overseas unless he gets a fat contract, as he is making big money in Europe. The guy is not a good defender but there is no doubt that he would be quite a good player in the league.
As for the above debate regarding sending amateurs to the Olympics, I don't think it's a good idea. College kids would lose very early against the strong international teams and it doesn't make sense that the USA are not winning gold. I much prefer the small chance of an upset, and failing that, the best team actually winning it all. No team will ever "catch up" to USA because apart from the US being the hub of all things ball, no country is big enough population-wise, nor does the sport have enough popularity. The Aussies are doing a good job with their high performance system and will be churning out more NBA players in the coming years.
Obviously Americans are miles ahead of the rest of the world, but I think some of the sneering is cringey (I haven't seen it on this website thankfully). A more fair comparison would be an all-Europe team vs USA in terms of population. And honestly, I think any all Europe team would quite easily beat an All-NBA team in the Olympics.
As for the above debate regarding sending amateurs to the Olympics, I don't think it's a good idea. College kids would lose very early against the strong international teams and it doesn't make sense that the USA are not winning gold. I much prefer the small chance of an upset, and failing that, the best team actually winning it all. No team will ever "catch up" to USA because apart from the US being the hub of all things ball, no country is big enough population-wise, nor does the sport have enough popularity. The Aussies are doing a good job with their high performance system and will be churning out more NBA players in the coming years.
Obviously Americans are miles ahead of the rest of the world, but I think some of the sneering is cringey (I haven't seen it on this website thankfully). A more fair comparison would be an all-Europe team vs USA in terms of population. And honestly, I think any all Europe team would quite easily beat an All-NBA team in the Olympics.
R2D2
Bench
"Quite easily"? Really???
But perhaps I am misinformed.
So allow me to suggest fielding the following opening 5 for team US:
Stephen Curry
Jimmy Butler (I am taking him over Harden for defence, and just slightly ahead of Klay)
Kevin Durant
LeBron James (I believe he can play the 4 against any opponent)
DeMarcus Cousins
May I kindly ask who are the 5 Europeans who will beat this team, and I emphasise - "quite easily"?
And to avoid any confusion: I am assuming that all-US team does not easily allow players to skip their duty, just like often European players are pressured to play for their countries.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
You're right, "quiet easily" was far too strong a term. What I meant was that they would have a very good chance to beat USA and in my book, would be favourites. Simply because Europeans are better suited to the internation alstyle of play. It's a cliche but there's only one ball and Euros generally know how to share it better. I've given this team zero thought but a line-up of Parker/Ginobili/Batum/Dirk/Gobert. Swap any of those for Giannis/Gallinari/Porzingis/Valanciunas/Dragic/Bogdanovic/Ibaka/Gasol/Rubio/whoever you prefer. Maybe cheating as Ginobili isn't a Euro but then again he probably wouldn't start in this hypothetical lineup anyway.
This is the heart of the matter: it's one thing to be on that, "It's more fun to watch our amateurs play against their pros," jazz when our amateurs were 21-22 year olds of the caliber of Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas, Jerry West, Bob Boozer and Walt Bellamy, or 20-21 year olds of the caliber of Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Alvin Robertson and Wayman Tisdale. But those wouldn't be the guys we'd be sending in 2016. We'd be sending a mixture of college seniors who weren't good enough to get drafted, and eighteen year-olds, straight out of high school. If we had that rule this year, we'd have sent the likes of Robert Carter, Yogi Ferrell, Justin Sears, Fred VanVleet, Harry Giles and Josh Jackson to play against Australia and Serbia's grown-assed men. Nobody but @John Galt wants to see that.
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links