So your entire argument still hinges on the lie that Paul has more offensive talent around him than Westbrook.
Your entire argument hinges on all those offensive weapons the Thunder have (outside of Durant and Westbrook)
Your breakdown was retarded for several reasons. Using career bests to allege their output today-stupid. Generic labels on shot-creation that would indicate Deandre Jordan has the same ability as Ibaka...or Blake Griffin the same ability as Kevin Durant-laughable.
I used career bests and then backed it up with their current abilities today. Their career bests were evidence to show why they're more talented (it's not like Crawford and Butler are totally washed up) offensive players.
You're really gonna argue that Crawford, Butler, Griffin and Jordan aren't more talented offensively over Thabo, Durant, Ibaka and Perkins as collectives?
Conveniently omitting Kevin Martin so we can pretend Westbrook just HAS to jack up 25 shots a game- painfully transparent garbage.
I said starting/most minutes - they both average 27 minutes yet Thabo starts, so he gets the nod. I didn't conveniently omit him. Plus Thabo plays down the stretch more than Martin does as well.
And of course when they had Harden, ANOTHER lethal scorer, the argument from your types was the same - this pathetic notion that the Thunder neeed Westbrook to play hero ball. Based on absolutely nothing. fukkin Teen Wolf sensibilities shaping your knowledge of the game.
This season-
Over their careers (games played together)-
Thunder-career winning percentage when Westbrook scores more= 71%
Thunder-career winning percentage when Durant scores more= 67%
This season the Thunder are 21-3 when Westbrook outscores Durant.
This dispels the notion that you think the Thunder don't need Westbrook's scoring/
'hero ball'. His scoring and score-first mentality are amongst the main reasons why this team has been successful, not despite it. Plus they need his scoring this season more than previous seasons, because there's no more Harden. He's just as an important piece to this team's success as Durant is.
THE ONLY ONE THAT'S BASING THEIR ARGUMENT OF THE THUNDER NOT NEEDING WESTBROOK'S SCORING ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS YOU. I'VE GOT FACTS AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK MY CLAIMS UP THAT THEY NEED HIS SCORING, ALL YOU'VE GOT IS YOUR KOBE-COMPLEX IN THE WAY OF YOU EVER TREATING ANY SIMILAR PLAYERS OBJECTIVELY.
WHERE IS THIS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE THUNDER ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT WESTBROOK'S SCORING AND ARE BETTER WITH THEIR OFFENSIVE WEAPONS SCORING (IBAKA, PERKINS AND THABO)?
SHOW ME WHERE OTHER THAN YOUR PREDISPOSED AGENDA-DRIVEN OPINION WHERE THE THUNDER DON'T NEED WESTBROOK'S SCORING?
The additional irony is that according to you, the Clippers have a ton of 20 ppg-capable scorers that get their points off their own shots...meanwhile the Thunder just have a bunch of big bodies and athletes that can't create for themselves. So...even if we go with your misguided assessment, a swap of the pgs would STILL stand to benefit the needs of both teams better than currently constructed. . Your lack of logic is confounding.
You love working in hyperboles don't you? You took my whole team-referencing out of context and stretched the truth of my intent. The intent was to show that they're more capable scorers and more players that can create their own shot (outside the respective PGs) on the Clippers than there are on the Thunder. That is irrefutable, the Clippers are more talented offensively and have a greater pedigree of scoring.
How would the logic of
'the Thunder have less talent offensively (shooting, creating for themselves) benefit more from CP3 over Westbrook - when the Thunder need more scoring outside of Durant?
The way the Thunder are constructed, they need Westbrook over CP3 because he maintains a constant-scoring drive and is the only player (outside Durant) talented enough to get to the rim and create his own shot and finish it on the regular. CP3 isn't gonna make up and surpass Westbrook's production on the offense end; or make up the difference and surpass it by making Ibaka, Perkins and Thabo better offensive/productive players.
Really all it comes down to is that you feel the job of the point guard is not to assist with setting up easy buckets for teammates and creating a balanced attack, but to make up for the perceived lack of teammates' skill by gunning and taking more shots than the #1 scorer in the league, one of those aforementioned teammates. Yup, that's that Kobe bullshyt creepin in again.
WRONG.
Where are you getting this idea from that Thabo, Perkins and Ibaka are offensive weapons? The Thunder are successful because Westbrook doesn't play the traditional role of PG. If he had a pass-first mentality, they wouldn't be nearly as good as they're right now (they certainly wouldn't be the number 1 seed - the above game-history this season proves that). Where's the proof of them playing better without Westbrook's style? Where's the proof that Ibaka, Perkins and Thabo are talented enough to warrant enough of a scoring role for the Thunder to have a balanced attack, that would make them more successful than they're now?
Ibaka is the only arguable player amongst those three that is talented enough to have more of a scoring role.
THERE'S THAT KOBE-COMPLEX AGAIN.
WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO CONSTANTLY REFER TO KOBE, WHEN THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM OTHER THAN YOU REACHING TO FIND SOME IRRELEVANT CONNECTION POINTS?
You on some
'Westbrook scored 24 points on the 24th of June 2013; June is the 6th month of the year and 2+4 = 6; numbers of 2013 are equal to 6 too which also has an equation of 2+4 and since Kobe wears the #24 jersey, that must mean Kobe is somehow related to all of this 
' type shyt.
And you seem bent on the idea that Paul would have to try to emulate Westbrook. No idea why; the point is that if Westbrook learned a thing or two from Paul, the Thunder could become a great team and win a championship. Until then, they can enjoy more years of disjointed #1 offense and runner up titles to more cohesive teams.
Emulate his impact he would have to. That he's incapable of. Paul would have to have a near-constant scoring mentality to make up for the shortcomings of the rest of the offensive players. Westbrook learning a thing or two from Paul isn't gonna make the Thunder win a championship. Stop reaching for shyt.
These are the reasons in relative-order of why the Thunder don't have a championship:
1. Heat being at the peak of their powers, with the best player in the league in his prime
2. Lack of real coaching in OKC
3. Lack of adequate role players or role players taking up too much salary (*looks at Fisher and Perkins*)
Yet you choose to single out one of the least contributing factors to the Thunder's inability to win a championship? Why is that? Why are you looking past the main/predominant reasons to single out something insignificant to the bigger picture? Why are you using surface-skimming analysis of Westbrook's game as the main reason and not attributing this to the root of all their problems?
Yup, that's that Kobe bullshyt creepin in again. 
But throw in a guy that gets it like Chris Paul and it happens immediately.
