The debate has been raging for the past week or so: Are the Golden State Warriors better without Kevin Durant?
Durant suffered a calf strain in Game 5 of the Western Conference Semifinals series with the Houston Rockets and the Warriors have gone 5-0 since, including a clean sweep of the Portland Trail Blazers in the Western Conference Finals.
Their success then triggered a raging debate of whether the Warriors actually need Durant (or not). The answer, obviously, is “no.” The Warriors are not better without arguably the best player in the game. That’s just a silly thought.
Fox Sports 1’s Chris Broussard offers up an interesting suggestion for Durant:
Here’s the crux of the matter. If they win a title without him, it’s not that they are better, you just don’t need him. There’s never been a player in the NBA of Kevin Durant’s ability. Guys in his ilk, [Larry] Bird, Magic [Johnson], [Michael] Jordan, LeBron [James], [Tim] Duncan, Hakeem [Olajuwon], whoever, they all were needed by their teams. None of those teams could have won championships for long stretches without those guys. That’s what people are challenging KD to do. … You’re of that ilk, go somewhere where you’re needed and win a championship.
Broussard makes somewhat of a good point. People love seeing a guy do it “on his own” in a sense that a team wins a championship centered around one superstar with a good supporting cast. Kind of how Dirk Nowitzki and the Dallas Mavericks won their championship in 2011.
It’s essentially a challenge to Durant to leave and go win a title on a lesser team and be a leader in a sense. In the long run, however, it would make more sense to stay with the Warriors and continue to add to the dynasty he helped build.
