# USA could own even more!!!!



## Dwaynes Pain (Aug 19, 2006)

ok really why doesn't the USA basketball team get all the best players and kick everyone's butt's cuz it pisses me off... we got chris bosh?!?!?! he good and all but not the best!!!! we have so much more to offer and we take heinrich(no offense) instead of all of the good players... and we took chris paul... what is up with this... We still own but we could really just KILL everyone... put ur concerns here cuz im mad... :curse:


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Free post.


----------



## lakegz (Mar 31, 2004)

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

youll see kid.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Dwaynes Pain said:


> ok really why doesn't the USA basketball team get all the best players and kick everyone's butt's cuz it pisses me off... we got chris bosh?!?!?! he good and all but not the best!!!! we have so much more to offer and we take heinrich(no offense) instead of all of the good players... and we took chris paul... what is up with this... We still own but we could really just KILL everyone... put ur concerns here cuz im mad... :curse:


what?


----------



## raptorsrule15 (Jul 4, 2003)

^I think he's talking about ppl like T-mac, Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, Carter, Kidd, AI etc.


Well buddy you gotta realize that they're making the team for the 2008 olympics, they want to get a young team together with rising stars so they have time to mesh, so we don't screw up like last olympics.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah people keep forgetting that this team is going to be together for 3 years. Don't judge them now so much. In 3 years our might will be godhead.

Think about it. Lebron, DWade, Dwight Howard, Oden, Bosh, Hinrich, Melo--all 3 years further into their careers. 3 years better at playing together as a team. 2008 we could be the best team of all-time if all goes well.

Oh and we might toss Kobe on top of all that.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

No they couldn't, a team full of stars equals disaster unless they mesh and pass the ball.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

This is becoming my quote. Reading is fundamental.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, the problem is a lot of those guys have done an olympics or two, and feel they don't have to go anymore, while others, like T-Mac I think are just *****s.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

You know, why doesn't USA get guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Yao Ming and Manu Ginobili. They would win that way


----------



## PDB (Aug 16, 2002)

bball2223 said:


> No they couldn't, a team full of stars equals disaster unless they mesh and pass the ball.


YES! take for example...


----------



## StackAttack (Mar 15, 2006)

As stupid as this thread is, I will say that Devin Harris would be absolutely perfect for the US team (penetration) watching last night's game.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Tersk said:


> You know, why doesn't USA get guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Yao Ming and Manu Ginobili. They would win that way


:laugh:


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

PDB said:


> YES! take for example...


Thats just about what a team full of stars would have to play like to win.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

no matter what happens, it just seems like international basketball in general is... not definitive (imo). i mean, it's almost like nba basketball is the only arena in which you'll occasionally see the best of what you have _today_ playing the best of what your opponent has _today_- but you don't have very much to choose from (you have 15-man limits, for one thing), which makes the outcome somewhat less meaningful in the end.

i just don't understand what international teams "build for the future" to do. is that a sign of the times or what? it's true, this team (the u.s.) is being groomed to play together in beijing, but who cares? imo, international basketball equals the sum of the parts- meaning the sum of all individual tournaments. you're actually going to _sacrifice_ (or whatever word you want to use) one tournament now in order to produce a better team for a tournament 2 (or 3 or 4) years down the road? i think this is where the north american custom of incessant rebuilding has made its loudest impact across the world. it's a little bizarre, imo.

take serbia for example. is this the best team they could have put on the floor? obviously not. but they're "building" around darko milicic, for one. well, i'll you what: when darko milicic actually achieves major accolades in the pro game (provided he ever does), i don't think he'll be playing for you anymore, serbia- at that point, you'll be effectively building for the _next_ run. it's a trap that i think this sporting day and age will be forever remembered by.

whether you're the united states or lebanon, i don't know why these teams don't field their best of the best. i've even said it myself before, this united states team might be _remembered_ (that being the operative word) as the 'best' assembly of talent by the time it's all said and done (because most of the players are still young and improving) but it's surely not their best team of today. if we're going to grade it on this standard, i fail to see how joe johnson and antawn jamison, for example, will find themselves in the mvp race next june while shaq and kevin garnett won't. it's one thing if the top players won't play (due to injury or otherwise), i'll take that- in some cases reluctantly- but i don't see how you could ever choose against a current superstar to groom a budding superstar in a tournament that's being played _*today*_. that idea of "rebuilding", imo, should be kept at the pro level (if anywhere), where you might actually be *focused on building* and decidedly not winning today. for an international tournament that's going to end in two weeks, i can't feel ya.

while i just spent a paragraph talking about the states, they're the least of my worries, really. their depth of talent is unmatched. in my world, this theme is more relevant to the european nations who sometimes have to represent themselves with shorthanded rosters- how can they be justified? beats me. canada, for instance, went into qualifying without steve nash and jamaal magloire. it's like, exactly _what_ canadian team 'failed' to qualify? it wasn't the canadian team, imo. and those players were completely healthy- if they themselves chose to _not play_ (like steve nash claimed he did), it was because of a grudge against the national program or something else similarly trivial. it might have even been for the abovementioned "rebuilding" strategy. if so, it does nothing but disappoint the fans. and if it does that, your roster may as well not show up at the tournament at all- it's not the roster that deserves to be judged by the world. 

i mean, at least disco dirk showed up (*and* was "chosen"). some of these other countries/players seem to have their eye on the wrong prize (imo). the tournament is being played now, and how much benefit can you really reap from maintaining the same roster for the next 3 years (although it's bound to change anyway)? is it really worth it- if it is, why is that tournament so much more important than _this_ one that you are willing to shortchange yourself today? i think if these national programs answered any of these questions, they might change the way they approach these events.

imo, international tournaments, if they're to have any meaning at all, should feature the 'best' players you could put on the floor right now (save for the injured stars). the states did a relatively good job of meeting that objective this year but they certainly could've been 'better' (it's not the "dream team" of today, i don't think). other nations are playing basketball with even _more_ players who wouldn't be there in a perfect world. it kind of takes the energy out of the tournament for me. i simply wish it weren't like that.

peace


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

PDB said:


> YES! take for example...


Mullin was a great player, but damn he IS Boo Radley.

And you'll never take Daly alive...


----------



## cadarn (Feb 1, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah people keep forgetting that this team is going to be together for 3 years. Don't judge them now so much. In 3 years our might will be godhead.
> 
> Think about it. Lebron, DWade, Dwight Howard, Oden, Bosh, Hinrich, Melo--all 3 years further into their careers. 3 years better at playing together as a team. 2008 we could be the best team of all-time if all goes well.
> 
> Oh and we might toss Kobe on top of all that.


Yes, let's not forget that Kobe, Arenas, and Amare are still on the roster for 08. All the criticism for this team seems to boil down to 'shaq and garnett' aren't on the team. Shaq doesn't belong on the team. Garnett should be on the team.


----------

