Aaron Gordon says Scottie Barnes when asked about "guy miscast in role as star who might excel as the ultimate glue guy"

[Spates]

I think it's fair to try and interpret what AG means by 'star' and realize that he's very likely using himself as a reference point. Gordon was the defacto 'star' during his tenure in Orlando so he's very much aware of how being the go-to-guy didn't mesh with his talents. He's not someone who can get you a bucket in any situation, particularly from the perimeter. Scottie is similar in that he doesn't have the fluidity and repertoire to be KD or Kawhi on the perimeter. His focus should be on playing excellent within himself before his strengths are diluted by expanding his game. Scottie greatest gifts are his connective passing and ability to bully down low. I'd much prefer him to maximize these talents before trying to master PnR ball handling.

It's isn't a knock on Scottie by any means. I've always envisioned Scottie as a high level connector. You impact winning at the highest level by playing a role best suited to your ability. Scottie is someone who'll be pivotal to a team playing a certain type/brand of basketball. I'm thinking along the lines of great players on non-heliocentric teams like Dennis Rodman, Marc Gasol, Draymond, Boris Diaw(2023/2014), etc.

I'm glad to hear AG comments because point-guard Scottie has the flavour of development nightmare. It has Lauri Markkanen/Aaron Gordon written all over it.

[will]

I think it's fair to try and interpret what AG means by 'star' and realize that he's very likely using himself as a reference point. Gordon was the defacto 'star' during his tenure in Orlando so he's very much aware of how being the go-to-guy didn't mesh with his talents. He's not someone who can get you a bucket in any situation, particularly from the perimeter. Scottie is similar in that he doesn't have the fluidity and repertoire to be KD or Kawhi on the perimeter. His focus should be on playing excellent within himself before his strengths are diluted by expanding his game. Scottie greatest gifts are his connective passing and ability to bully down low. I'd much prefer him to maximize these talents before trying to master PnR ball handling.

It's isn't a knock on Scottie by any means. I've always envisioned Scottie as a high level connector. You impact winning at the highest level by playing a role best suited to your ability. Scottie is someone who'll be pivotal to a team playing a certain type/brand of basketball. I'm thinking along the lines of great players on non-heliocentric teams like Dennis Rodman, Marc Gasol, Draymond, Boris Diaw(2023/2014), etc.

I'm glad to hear AG comments because point-guard Scottie has the flavour of development nightmare. It has Lauri Markkanen/Aaron Gordon written all over it.

The big difference is the playmaking from Scottish. Aaron never had that in his bag to this extent.

Scottish is unselfish to a fault.

[Harry Palmer]

To be clear, as I can’t listen to it atm, did Gordon say Scottie reminds him of himself? Was he asked to assess Scottie?

My impression from what I read was that he was asked to name someone he thought of as an ‘ultimate glue guy’ and he chose, of all the names, to say Scottie. Which imo is less likely motivated by trying to see himself as Scottie…that’s more likely to come if he’s asked about Scottie the player and project. But if he’s asked a blanket question and he chooses Scottie, that doesn’t sound like some ego beef…there are lots of stars, even better ones than Barnes…he could have chosen to puff up about. Unlike for fans of Scottie’s team, I doubt Gordon sees the world or basketball through the inevitable prism of Raptordom.

[pharring]

This is part of why basketball discourse is endlessly fascinating and entertaining.

It is a team sport. The "secret" to good basketball is widely regarded to be the level of sacrifice each player is willing to make in order to create a better 5-man unit on the floor.

However, it is also a star-led sport. The last team standing at the end almost invariably is the team that has the best player (or the player that is playing the best at the time). Jokic... Steph... Giannis... LeBron... Kawhi...

The conversation about a #1 vs. Glue Guy involves both elements. To win a championship, you need that #1. But that #1 needs a team around him.

To borrow an admittedly terrible analogy, the Raptors likely need to approach roster building the same was as the Moneyball Athletics. You try to build your #1 in the aggregate while surrounding your aggregate with the required Glue Guys to build a team. In the Raptors current iteration, you could call IQ and RJ our "aggregate" #1 with Scottie as the lead Glue Guy and the balance of the team there to provide supporting role play. That's likely the most charitable way to describe the current roster.

Of course, you have to go waaaaay back to find a team that won a 'chip with an aggregate #1. 2004 Pistons? 1989 Pistons? 1979 Sonics?

All of which is just a fancy way of saying we are pretty much screwed until a true #1 falls into our laps. Team sport, "secret", glue guys... whatever. No #1? No 'chip.

[will]

This is part of why basketball discourse is endlessly fascinating and entertaining.

It is a team sport. The "secret" to good basketball is widely regarded to be the level of sacrifice each player is willing to make in order to create a better 5-man unit on the floor.

However, it is also a star-led sport. The last team standing at the end almost invariably is the team that has the best player (or the player that is playing the best at the time). Jokic... Steph... Giannis... LeBron... Kawhi...

The conversation about a #1 vs. Glue Guy involves both elements. To win a championship, you need that #1. But that #1 needs a team around him.

To borrow an admittedly terrible analogy, the Raptors likely need to approach roster building the same was as the Moneyball Athletics. You try to build your #1 in the aggregate while surrounding your aggregate with the required Glue Guys to build a team. In the Raptors current iteration, you could call IQ and RJ our "aggregate" #1 with Scottie as the lead Glue Guy and the balance of the team there to provide supporting role play. That's likely the most charitable way to describe the current roster.

Of course, you have to go waaaaay back to find a team that won a 'chip with an aggregate #1. 2004 Pistons? 1989 Pistons? 1979 Sonics?

All of which is just a fancy way of saying we are pretty much screwed until a true #1 falls into our laps. Team sport, "secret", glue guys... whatever. No #1? No 'chip.

Kind of weird how people are projecting the Spurs to contend in a few seasons with Victor

[Zeno]

I would argue that the Answer right now is Lebron.

[Scase]

So many people up in their feels about this lol. He was commenting on how Scottie does all the little things that's required to win, and most stars don't do that stuff.

This isn't a Scottie > AG thing, it's play style and mentality. Yes Scottie is a better player, this is obvious. Also I guess the definition of "Star" is also up for interpretation. I don't think Scottie is a star right now.

[will]

I would argue that the Answer right now is Lebron.

The Answer is, and always will be Allen Iverson.

[disoblige]

I would argue that the Answer right now is Lebron.

The Answer is, and always will be Allen Iverson.

I call Iverson the garbage man. He stored all his nba money in garbage bags (he didnt trust banks) and he claimed some of his friends stole some of them.

[Zeno]

I would argue that the Answer right now is Lebron.

The Answer is, and always will be Allen Iverson.

I once considered just spamming "Allen Iverson" as response to every question on a test I didn't study for.

[Spates]

I think it's fair to try and interpret what AG means by 'star' and realize that he's very likely using himself as a reference point. Gordon was the defacto 'star' during his tenure in Orlando so he's very much aware of how being the go-to-guy didn't mesh with his talents. He's not someone who can get you a bucket in any situation, particularly from the perimeter. Scottie is similar in that he doesn't have the fluidity and repertoire to be KD or Kawhi on the perimeter. His focus should be on playing excellent within himself before his strengths are diluted by expanding his game. Scottie greatest gifts are his connective passing and ability to bully down low. I'd much prefer him to maximize these talents before trying to master PnR ball handling.

It's isn't a knock on Scottie by any means. I've always envisioned Scottie as a high level connector. You impact winning at the highest level by playing a role best suited to your ability. Scottie is someone who'll be pivotal to a team playing a certain type/brand of basketball. I'm thinking along the lines of great players on non-heliocentric teams like Dennis Rodman, Marc Gasol, Draymond, Boris Diaw(2023/2014), etc.

I'm glad to hear AG comments because point-guard Scottie has the flavour of development nightmare. It has Lauri Markkanen/Aaron Gordon written all over it.

The big difference is the playmaking from Scottish. Aaron never had that in his bag to this extent.

Scottish is unselfish to a fault.

Yeah, it's not so much that they're the same player, it's about them not being the guys you give carte blanche. They're guys that need to find their particular niche and not assume the defacto role that comes with being the franchise player. I think Scottie can be a brilliant player. The thing is, when brilliant players aren't floor generals/lead ball handlers, role and roster construction matter tremendously.

Warriors aren't an all-time team without Draymond and his 2-man game with Steph. They'd be just another strong pseudo-contender a la the Mavericks.

[Mark_83]

Read on Twitter

Truly my worst Raptors nightmare.

Literally been saying this from the jump, and I'm a huge Scottie fan. He's going to be waaaayyyy better than Gordon, but he's also more Scottie than MJ, literally.

[will]

I would argue that the Answer right now is Lebron.

The Answer is, and always will be Allen Iverson.

I once considered just spamming "Allen Iverson" as response to every question on a test I didn't study for.

What the hell stopped you?!?!??

[Spates]

To be clear, as I can’t listen to it atm, did Gordon say Scottie reminds him of himself? Was he asked to assess Scottie?

My impression from what I read was that he was asked to name someone he thought of as an ‘ultimate glue guy’ and he chose, of all the names, to say Scottie. Which imo is less likely motivated by trying to see himself as Scottie…that’s more likely to come if he’s asked about Scottie the player and project. But if he’s asked a blanket question and he chooses Scottie, that doesn’t sound like some ego beef…there are lots of stars, even better ones than Barnes…he could have chosen to puff up about. Unlike for fans of Scottie’s team, I doubt Gordon sees the world or basketball through the inevitable prism of Raptordom.

It's not in the article but I suppose the question was part of the interview. I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon sees similarities between himself and Scottie. Both former 4th picks who are sort of "tweeners." They process the game well and have been given the reigns of the franchise that selected them in the draft. My assumption is that Gordon has appreciation for Barnes' game, sees their similarities, and has a notion of the appropriate developmental path he should take.

[Zeno]

The Answer is, and always will be Allen Iverson.

I once considered just spamming "Allen Iverson" as response to every question on a test I didn't study for.

What the hell stopped you?!?!??

decided to go for the 20-30% instead of a straight 0%. 0 is very hard to overcome.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Ultimate glue guy is also named Scottie. Coincidence or illuminati pyramids?

[Tha Cynic]

One thing you realize when you watch the NBA is that there's a top 4-5 who can change everything, and then there's everyone else. There are a lot of "glue guys". Aaron Gordon is actually lower than a Scottie Barnes tier so he misunderstood the point of the question while basically making the obvious statement that Barnes is not a legit superstar right now. For example even a guy like Haliburton who gets a ton of hype is really more of a glue guy and a sidekick to someone else who's a top 5 player. Jayson Tatum is a secondary star and that's why they haven't won anything in a weak East with a stacked team .

We hype up too many guys above what they are. The US is still looking for their legit young superstar and maybe now ANT will be that guy, but they have no player take up that mantle from the old guys like LeBron, KD, Curry, etc.

Barnes will ultimately need a legit scorer playing beside him, but a scorer will also need another star beside him. James wasn't winning those championships without Wade, Bosh, Irving and even the fake one he won with Anthony Davis. Barnes to me can have the same impact as a #1 scorer, but won't be a #1 scorer. To me he has a legit chance to be a Kevin Garnett type of player. We need to find his Paul Pierce

[Raps in 4]

Gordon is saying this to prop himself up. Scottie's game is far too dynamic for an AG-like role. At worst, he'll have a Lowry-type role.

[TheGeneral99]

I think it's fair to try and interpret what AG means by 'star' and realize that he's very likely using himself as a reference point. Gordon was the defacto 'star' during his tenure in Orlando so he's very much aware of how being the go-to-guy didn't mesh with his talents. He's not someone who can get you a bucket in any situation, particularly from the perimeter. Scottie is similar in that he doesn't have the fluidity and repertoire to be KD or Kawhi on the perimeter. His focus should be on playing excellent within himself before his strengths are diluted by expanding his game. Scottie greatest gifts are his connective passing and ability to bully down low. I'd much prefer him to maximize these talents before trying to master PnR ball handling.

It's isn't a knock on Scottie by any means. I've always envisioned Scottie as a high level connector. You impact winning at the highest level by playing a role best suited to your ability. Scottie is someone who'll be pivotal to a team playing a certain type/brand of basketball. I'm thinking along the lines of great players on non-heliocentric teams like Dennis Rodman, Marc Gasol, Draymond, Boris Diaw(2023/2014), etc.

I'm glad to hear AG comments because point-guard Scottie has the flavour of development nightmare. It has Lauri Markkanen/Aaron Gordon written all over it.

He wasn't the de facto star in Orlando at all during his tenure.

Vucevic was easily the de facto star on that team. Fournier was actually probably the #2 option and Gordon was the #3 option.

During his time on Orlando the team won 25, 35, 29, 25, 42, 33 and 21 games...one of the worst teams in the league for a long time.

So Gordon was essentially a #2 or #3 option on a lottery team and now he's a #4 option on a championship team, which makes sense.

He was never a "star" caliber player ever. I remember Gordon being seen as a great athlete that was good defensively, but quite raw and limited offensively. Even today he's not really much of a creator, but relies on his athleticism, screens and backdoor cuts because of all the attention Jokic gets. He's the perfect forward next to Jokic because he has the athletic ability and speed to catch lobs and finish on cuts.

[deck]

So if Scottie isn’t the #1 guy and we’re not interested in tanking for high draft picks, how are we supposed to become contenders?

The same way we won a championship 5 years ago? Increase the value of players we have and make good moves.