It goes without saying that you want guys who want to compete, and you do want to groom younger guys. But the problem in 2004 -- can't speak for 2002 -- was that you had too many young talented guys playing against a lot of savvy players on international teams. I think the attitude was fine in most cases, but you don't have as many operable gears at age 20 as you do at age 28 or 29 -- the average age of the 1992 team -- no matter how talented you are. So I would have liked for them to address that issue, first and foremost, instead of basically blowing up the model. And to fair, the team is going to be pretty old-headed when the 2008 comes around. But for the record, "Dream Teams" don't fail because you have too many stars. Every coach at every level has to make decisions on who plays, who gets the last shot, etc. (You don't have to deal with millionaires in most cases, but you do have to deal with parents, who can be every bit a pain in the ass.) For instance, two of the best HS players in the country attend the same school, yet there's a clear top banana. Eventually, you accept it, or you leave. (Hell, look at the alleged hot dogs on the Miami team who became role players on a world championship team -- Zo, Payton, Walker. And really, that occurs every year.) "Dream Teams" fail when the opponents have a more thorough knowledge of the game, which wasn't a problem when the USA had players with a full command of their craft. USA didn't have it on the last two go-arounds because they picked stars who were ready to play more experience competition. For instance, Pierce at 24 was a crummy pick for 2002, which was the greater disaster. At age 28, he makes sense. I can't even begin to count the number of guys on that 2004 team who had no business being in Athens. I do like the idea of starting early. A college coach? Not so much. But it'll be interesting to watch.
I say they get LeBron out there and give him the ball every time.... chances are they'll do better than last time around.
Jack, I agree with you on a lot of your points, but I think too many of the players have expected a cake walk, and not paid attention to the coach. The international game has a lot of differences from the NBA, both in rules and style of play. Our guys weren't prepared. It wasn't lack of talent. Lack of experience played some role, but it was more a lack of knowledge, and that's something that could have been corrected with drilling in practice. Either the coaching sucked, or the guys didn't take it seriously enough. I tend to believe the latter.
Given that the 2004 team was very aware of the embarrassment of the 2002 team, it's tough to jump to the conclusion that the team simply tuned Brown out. What you had is a lot of young players who had three months to get rid of a lot of holes in their games -- offensively, defensively and on the glass -- their shoe contracts notwithstanding. I'm not sure that talent adds up to the ability to ball in a well-rounded way, which the international and NBA game both demand. I don't think that means eradication of "stars", but if guys like T-Mac and Shaq aren't coming, you have to bring in the old-heads who know all the angles. That's another reason I'm less than thrilled with the exclusion of Iverson. People may think what they want about the guy, but players respect him and his game. And I think he would be willing to alter his game a bit to be on that team.
