5 NBA Teams Whose Depth Will Be Exposed as a Mirage

The public has spoken. Leaving the Denver Nuggets out of a discussion about the deepest teams in basketball is by all accounts a grievous oversight. Accept my humblest apologies.

But before I made my case for the New York Knicks' depth, I ranked the best second units going into next season and gave those same Nuggets the second spot. In fact, the Knicks didn't even make my top-five.

So what gives?

Was this an affront to the Nuggets? Pandering to Knicks fans?

The disconnect has more to do with a difference between the quality of a bench unit and overall depth. If those sound like two different ways of saying the very same thing, hear me out. There's a difference.

For example, a team that's forced to rely so heavily on its bench on account of a mediocre starting lineup, really isn't as deep as you might think. The bench may be amazing as benches go, but it's one thing for that bench to be a luxury, and it's quite another for that bench to be every bit as important as the starting lineup. Teams that need their benches often need them because the starting unit just isn't that great.

Last season's Philadelphia 76ers are a good example.

It was tempting to describe Philly's as one of the two or three deepest teams in the league. They played nine or 10 deep, and they relied on bench guys like Lou Williams and Thaddeus Young every bit as much as some starters, if not more.

But was this really a deep team? Or was it just a team whose talent was distributed more equitably than one with two or three stars in the starting lineup? The reason the San Antonio Spurs and Chicago Bulls epitomized depth last season is that they had exceptional starting lineups and top-shelf benches.

In today's lexicon, we've confused depth with an ensemble approach in which minutes are more equitably distributed. Sometimes those things overlap, but we shouldn't assume that teams with the best 10th-men are thereby necessarily the deepest. After all, a team in which that solid 10th-man is rarely used is probably deeper than one in which he's relied upon more heavily—precisely because the depth ahead of him in the rotation reduces his minutes.

So yes, the Nuggets have one of the very best benches in the NBA, but that doesn't mean they're as deep as they seem. And they aren't the only ones who create that mirage of depth.

Here's a look at five teams with great benches...and less depth than meets the eye.

Boston Celtics

The Boston Celtics will contend for a title once again, and there's little doubt the team they put on the court this season will be even better than the one that came within 48 minutes of the NBA Finals last season.

They also assembled what has to rank as one of the very best backcourt rotations in the league, adding Jason Terry and Courtney Lee to a unit that already featured Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley. And though questions remain about what Jeff Green will contribute this season, having him return to back up Paul Pierce adds another important dimension to this second unit.

The bigger concern is that the Celtics remain thin where it can least afford to: in the painted area.

Boston will once again be in a position where starting Brandon Bass requires them to play Kevin Garnett at center—a formula that worked well toward the end of last season, but one that also takes a toll on KG.

And while the approach may have been sustainable against the Atlanta Hawks (who played most of their first-round series against Boston without Al Horford), the Philadelphia 76ers and the Miami Heat, there's no guarantee the next title push will enjoy such favorable matchups.

After all, those same 76ers now feature Andrew Bynum in the middle, and you can rest assured Doc Rivers would prefer not to have Garnett risking fouls against someone like the Indiana Pacers' Roy Hibbert.

There may not be many quality centers in the East, but nor is there any guarantee the Celtics can avoid them in the postseason.

Drafting Jared Sullinger and Fab Melo was certainly a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen just how large a step it was. 

Yes, the Celtics are a deep team. More importantly, they'll once again be a tough out for the Heat and anyone else aiming for the Finals. They just aren't deep in the ways you'd like them to be.

Denver Nuggets

The problem for the Denver Nuggets isn't the second unit—the bench is outstanding. The problem is that the Nuggets need their bench so desperately on account of a starting unit that still has a lot to prove.

Real depth is when you have two or three guys who can play at a high level for 40 minutes on any given night, but typically don't have to. Outside of point guard Ty Lawson and newly acquired Andre Iguodala, who else in this starting lineup fits that profile?

Danilo Gallinari might get there if he ever lives up to the shooting potential he demonstrated as a rookie. JaVale McGee is sure to get there sooner or later.

But at the moment?

At the moment, Denver's starting lineup is a work in progress. Let's just leave it at that. It's shown signs of great things, and it has a ridiculous amount of upside. That's all, though. Gallinari isn't nearly consistent enough to be a credible second option, and that really leaves you wondering: Who is this team's second option?

Iguodala? A guy who's proven to be at his best doing just about everything else but scoring?

If Wilson Chandler returns to form, maybe this evaluation changes a bit. He might even give Gallinari a run for that starting job. Denver could even elect to spread the floor a bit and start both Chandler and Gallinari while bringing Kenneth Faried off the bench (a move that would make that bench look a bit less spectacular).

This kind of dilemma ("who's the second option?") is illustrative of a team that's broadly talented but lacking in the real depth department. George Karl has to distribute minutes and scoring responsibilities, because he doesn't have many guys who are singularly capable of taking them on alone.

It would be one thing if a guy like Chandler were a luxury. When Gallinari is shooting the rock at a 41 percent clip, Chandler is more of a necessity though.

Meanwhile, you could point to other solid second-unit guys like Andre Miller and say, "Ah ha! Depth!" But Miller creates something of a double-bind—either he doesn't get many minutes with Ty Lawson deserving the lion's share of playing time at point or Karl has to play him alongside Lawson, leaving the Nuggets with a seriously undersized backcourt.

Sure, there's solid talent at the margins: Timofey Mozgov, Anthony Randolph, Corey Brewer. You can certainly argue that the very bottom of Denver's roster is the very best in the league. The problem is that the top is nowhere close, and that matters to depth.

When a mediocre starting lineup is actually putting pressure on that second unit to shine, your team isn't as deep as you think. 

Los Angeles Lakers

The problem with the Los Angeles Lakers' depth is the polar opposite of what's afflicting the Denver Nuggets.

Whereas Denver's starting lineup is relatively average, the Lakers have four All-Star caliber players in theirs. At first glance, then, a refurbished bench that includes the likes of Antawn Jamison, Jodie Meeks, Jordan Hill, Steve Blake, Chris Duhon and Earl Clark doesn't look half bad.

There are scorers. There are defensive specialists. There are guys who can play roles.

The problem is that L.A.'s pristine starting lineup is old. If the Oklahoma City Thunder had this bench, it would be a different story. 

But the Lakers need an elite bench, and—more importantly—they need insurance at key positions.

They're fine in the paint obviously, largely because starting power forward Pau Gasol can play some minutes at center in the event Dwight Howard starts to experience back pain. You probably won't find a club that's better prepared at the 4 and 5 spots.

That's the good news.

The bad news is at the point guard and small forward positions. Steve Nash will turn 39 this season, and he's already had back issues begin to creep up on him. If anything happens to Nash, the Lakers are down to Blake and Duhon. Either one of these guys can give you 15 minutes of decent play, but they're not the kind of options you could rely on in the event of a catastrophe.

And at small forward, Los Angeles is in big trouble should something happen to Metta World Peace—even if that "something" is just poor play. Earl Clark and Devin Ebanks are intriguing long-term prospects, but they're untested at the moment.

Some Lakers fans will suggest that the fifth guy on the floor really doesn't matter when the other four are so darn good.

Unfortunately, if that fifth guy can't hit open jumpers, it makes it a lot easier to double-team the ones who are so darn good.

L.A.'s bench got better, but it remains dangerously weak at the positions for which it can least afford to be weak.

Brooklyn Nets

A reclamation project like Andray Blatche had to come as pretty good news to Brooklyn Nets fans. This bench unit all of a sudden looks pretty good—at first glance anyway. 

The Nets' problem is that the only guy on this team who really ranks as an above-average defender is Gerald Wallace. Brook Lopez will block some shots thanks to sheer size alone, and Joe Johnson isn't bad given the right matchups.

But on the whole, this is not a good defensive team.

Free-agent signee, C.J. Watson, would seem to address that need, assuming he gets minutes. With Deron Williams in front of him and MarShon Brooks backing up Johnson at shooting guard, it's hard to see where those minutes will come from.

You'll also notice some veteran names on this bench like Keith Bogans and Jerry Stackhouse, but they'll serve more of a locker-room/practice function than they will on the floor. 

Who knows what you'll get out of Josh Childress?

And that leaves the the guys in the paint. Behind Lopez and Kris Humphries, the Nets will roll out Blatche and Reggie Evans—quite possibly the most confusing combination of lazy and dirty you'll see on the floor all season long. The good news is that Lopez will be surrounded by a couple of guys (Humphries and Evans) who actually rebound the ball.

The bad news for Brooklyn is that those rebounders aren't scorers. Head coach Avery Johnson will constantly be forced to choose between having a presence on the glass and deploying big men who can score.

This rotation is much better than last season's, but it's probably not nearly as good as most think. The Nets have assembled some talent, but the odds of it gelling and turning into a winner don't look all that great at the moment.

Utah Jazz

Sometimes it feels like the Utah Jazz were built to stop the Los Angeles Lakers in the event the two teams face off in a first-round series.

It's hard to find many teams with an interior rotation that rivals what the young Jazz have going for them, but it's also hard to find many clubs it will matter against. Utah has the bodies—they just don't fit together. Theirs is a top-heavy, misleading, kind of depth.

Derrick Favors is one of the best non-starting big men in the league, but he's stuck behind minute-eaters like Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap. Good luck trying to find some minutes for Enes Kanter.

Meanwhile, Utah's backcourt of Clippers castaways is painfully average. 

Mo Williams was a good addition, but it's saying something when he's your best guard. It's also saying something when two of your four best guards are Earl Watson and Raja Bell—namely that someone in the front office still thinks it's 2008.

Utah is headed in the right direction thanks to guys like Alex Burks and Gordon Hayward, but they're still young and developing.

That leaves the Jazz with a hodgepodge lineup of some decent veterans and promising youth. Together, that doesn't quite add up to depth.