I Attended The Raptors Coaching Clinic and Open Practice, Some Takeaways

[Chandan]

HiJiNX trying to single handedly save darkos career.

[YogurtProducer]

I agree in principle, but based on what was said at the open practice, I don’t think we are going to see a player that can’t shoot play any minutes on this team. The philosophy now is everybody needs to be able to shoot.

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

Eh... not really.

CLE stars Allen + Mobley, Knicks start Mitchell Rob, Heat have Bam who does not shoot 3's (6 of his 15 career makes are in the lat 5 games tho), MIN with Gobert, LAC with Zubac, NOP with JV, DAL with their platoon, PHO with Nurkic, SAC with Sabonis (although he hubs up top alot, but so does Jak).

It is just really not true that Poeltl is "overall detrimental to a team". Just blatantly false. Really not sure how you can see this team since we got Yak when we are 36-40 with Jak [21-29 this year], and 2-18 without and say he is "detrimental to the team".

You obviously prefer your center can stretch it out, but if you got a guy like Poeltl plus a 3 point shot you are paying him 35M a year and not 19M.

[Scase]

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

I don’t believe you can ever have a successful defence with Kelly at the 5. Kelly is a backup 5 at best and the 4/5 you pair with him better be an elite rim protector. But I do agree Jak is of a dying breed. Right now, I think he’d ideally be on a team like the Grizzlies who got a guy like Ja.

I'm not suggesting him as a permanent solution or anything, but rather getting the team to get used to playing with a shooting centre. A C that can stretch the floor is the default, and playing with one, is drastically different than playing with a slow and limited C like Jak. So, even if it ends up being a "worse" team, we still need to practice that play style. We're years away from worrying about winning, so best to get started now.

[ArthurVandelay]

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

I don’t believe you can ever have a successful defence with Kelly at the 5. Kelly is a backup 5 at best and the 4/5 you pair with him better be an elite rim protector. But I do agree Jak is of a dying breed. Right now, I think he’d ideally be on a team like the Grizzlies who got a guy like Ja.

I think we will have an idea of what their plan is for next season based on what they do with Poeltl

If Poeltl is gone they are going by for bottom 6 next year

[HiJiNX]

Great posts HiJinx.
I hope the management has learnt their mistakes and stop putting clones (i.e. everyone must be 6'9") on the court at the same time. While shooting is important, there is no point to put all 5 players who can shoot, but have other notable flaws. This is team sports, and ideally, we need to put different pieces together so the players can compliment with each others skill set. We already have shooters in Quickley and Dick (both are likely to be starters), and RJB, Barnes, Poetl, Kelly O aren't likely going anywhere soon. Adding Ochai we have 7 players already. I think we need someone who can play sound defense, maybe ideally a young Siakam when he first entered the league in the first 2 years....

I agree in principle, but based on what was said at the open practice, I don’t think we are going to see a player that can’t shoot play any minutes on this team. The philosophy now is everybody needs to be able to shoot.

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

I think Poeltl is the exception because he basically does every big man thing well except shoot.

[nikster]

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

Eh... not really.

CLE stars Allen + Mobley, Knicks start Mitchell Rob, Heat have Bam who does not shoot 3's (6 of his 15 career makes are in the lat 5 games tho), MIN with Gobert, LAC with Zubac, NOP with JV, DAL with their platoon, PHO with Nurkic, SAC with Sabonis (although he hubs up top alot, but so does Jak).

It is just really not true that Poeltl is "overall detrimental to a team". Just blatantly false. Really not sure how you can see this team since we got Yak when we are 36-40 with Jak [21-29 this year], and 2-18 without and say he is "detrimental to the team".

You obviously prefer your center can stretch it out, but if you got a guy like Poeltl plus a 3 point shot you are paying him 35M a year and not 19M.

Also got Pels with Jonas, Dallas with lively..

I question anybody basketball knowledge who doesn't understand the value Poeltl brings. This team has been way better with him in the floor. Their argument is just "3s good, no 3s bad"

[tecumseh18]

I agree in principle, but based on what was said at the open practice, I don’t think we are going to see a player that can’t shoot play any minutes on this team. The philosophy now is everybody needs to be able to shoot.

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

I think Poeltl is the exception because he basically does every big man thing well except shoot.

It will be interesting to see how the league adjusts to the reality of a consistent 5-10 block per game guy like Wemby (and Chet?). It seems imperative to pull him away from the net. Will it be possible to run a 5-man group out there that can't play 5 out?

Fortunately, Raps aren't in the West.

[Scase]

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

Eh... not really.

CLE stars Allen + Mobley, Knicks start Mitchell Rob, Heat have Bam who does not shoot 3's (6 of his 15 career makes are in the lat 5 games tho), MIN with Gobert, LAC with Zubac, NOP with JV, DAL with their platoon, PHO with Nurkic, SAC with Sabonis (although he hubs up top alot, but so does Jak).

It is just really not true that Poeltl is "overall detrimental to a team". Just blatantly false. Really not sure how you can see this team since we got Yak when we are 36-40 with Jak [21-29 this year], and 2-18 without and say he is "detrimental to the team".

You obviously prefer your center can stretch it out, but if you got a guy like Poeltl plus a 3 point shot you are paying him 35M a year and not 19M.

Also got Pels with Jonas, Dallas with lively..

I question anybody basketball knowledge who doesn't understand the value Poeltl brings. This team has been way better with him in the floor. Their argument is just "3s good, no 3s bad"

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

[nikster]

Eh... not really.

CLE stars Allen + Mobley, Knicks start Mitchell Rob, Heat have Bam who does not shoot 3's (6 of his 15 career makes are in the lat 5 games tho), MIN with Gobert, LAC with Zubac, NOP with JV, DAL with their platoon, PHO with Nurkic, SAC with Sabonis (although he hubs up top alot, but so does Jak).

It is just really not true that Poeltl is "overall detrimental to a team". Just blatantly false. Really not sure how you can see this team since we got Yak when we are 36-40 with Jak [21-29 this year], and 2-18 without and say he is "detrimental to the team".

You obviously prefer your center can stretch it out, but if you got a guy like Poeltl plus a 3 point shot you are paying him 35M a year and not 19M.

Also got Pels with Jonas, Dallas with lively..

I question anybody basketball knowledge who doesn't understand the value Poeltl brings. This team has been way better with him in the floor. Their argument is just "3s good, no 3s bad"

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

[Scase]

Also got Pels with Jonas, Dallas with lively..

I question anybody basketball knowledge who doesn't understand the value Poeltl brings. This team has been way better with him in the floor. Their argument is just "3s good, no 3s bad"

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

Yeah that's it, it is bitching. Not cause it had a massive impact on the team or anything. You got me bud. The only cascading impacts of your half assed argument, is that we start losing to sub .500 teams more, which considering we're tanking, yeah that's a good thing.

You know the thing that that Jak trade directly put at a high risk of being a complete waste of a season? But nah, at least he's good at finishing at the rim. Can't wait to battle for the play in.

[nikster]

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

Yeah that's it, it is bitching. Not cause it had a massive impact on the team or anything. You got me bud. The only cascading impacts of your half assed argument, is that we start losing to sub .500 teams more, which considering we're tanking, yeah that's a good thing.

You know the thing that that Jak trade directly put at a high risk of being a complete waste of a season? But nah, at least he's good at finishing at the rim. Can't wait to battle for the play in.

The trade has nothing to do with Jakob being a "dying breed" or "detrimental to the team"

[Zeno]

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

I think Poeltl is the exception because he basically does every big man thing well except shoot.

It will be interesting to see how the league adjusts to the reality of a consistent 5-10 block per game guy like Wemby (and Chet?). It seems imperative to pull him away from the net. Will it be possible to run a 5-man group out there that can't play 5 out?

Fortunately, Raps aren't in the West.

It is interesting as a long term vs short term question for roster building in the west because one of the reason I’d figure Jak would have more utility in the west was Jokic, not a guy you need to draw out of the paint as much and a guy you’d probably want a little more strength to cover. Though there is the perfectly reasonable belief that you are better off doubling him with an OG and a ranging shot blocking type since you probably have to double anyway.

Anyway, it is crazy that I’ve unintentionally managed to derail the thread into a Jakob Poeltl thread. I guess this is a sign of things to come with lottery coming up. lol.

[Chandan]

Also got Pels with Jonas, Dallas with lively..

I question anybody basketball knowledge who doesn't understand the value Poeltl brings. This team has been way better with him in the floor. Their argument is just "3s good, no 3s bad"

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

Why is he not allowed to be upset about the trade, despite it being universally acknowledged as a bad decision. One which we are still {or about to} suffer the consequences?

[YogurtProducer]

Well first of all Jonas can shoot the 3, so there goes him. Lively has his place because his team has great 3pt shooting overall.

But ignoring the whole "3 good" thing, him being detrimental isn't just from him being on the court, but all the cascading impacts it has had on the team by getting him. Jak is not a bad centre, he's also not this magical player that elevates the team, he is a solid centre for a team that had no backup C up until a month or two ago. This team would have looked half decent with many other centres, cause C's good, no C's bad.

If Jak was signed as a FA, very few, if any people would be complaining about him being here.

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

Why is he not allowed to be upset about the trade, despite it being universally acknowledged as a bad decision. One which we are still {or about to} suffer the consequences?

Because his original point had nothing to do about the trade?

ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team

Once again - he is incapable of separating Jakob Poeltl the player from the trade that happened to get him. The man just hates Poeltl for no reason now.

There really is no reason to be upset over something that happened over a year ago.

[nikster]

Having Centres who don't play good defense, aren't good rebounder, arent elite finishing im the paint or don't move the ball all have cascading impacts on the rest of the team too.

Got it, so Yak is a good starting centre who is fine for the team, but you just enjoy bitching about him because your still upset about the trade.

Why is he not allowed to be upset about the trade, despite it being universally acknowledged as a bad decision. One which we are still {or about to} suffer the consequences?

Because his original point had nothing to do about the trade?

ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team

Once again - he is incapable of separating Jakob Poeltl the player from the trade that happened to get him. The man just hates Poeltl for no reason now.

There really is no reason to be upset over something that happened over a year ago.

Exactly. What he was traded for doesn't impact who he is. You can dislike the trade and still understand what he brings to the table.

[Scase]

Why is he not allowed to be upset about the trade, despite it being universally acknowledged as a bad decision. One which we are still {or about to} suffer the consequences?

Because his original point had nothing to do about the trade?

ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team

Once again - he is incapable of separating Jakob Poeltl the player from the trade that happened to get him. The man just hates Poeltl for no reason now.

There really is no reason to be upset over something that happened over a year ago.

Exactly. What he was traded for doesn't impact who he is. You can dislike the trade and still understand what he brings to the table.

What he brings to the table is directly tied to the trade, the **** are you talking about? You trade Lebron for a 2nd and that's a steal. You get a 2nd FOR Lebron and you got robbed.

Jak was not worth what he cost us, couple that with the cascading impacts and then it was a bad trade. Trades are evaluated based on the cost, and the quality of the return. His skill set is not good enough to have justified the cost IMO.

You get to say his skill set is the only important thing to discuss, if he was signed outright, and even then it's comparative to his salary. In this case it's both acquisition, and the retention costs. How is this so hard to understand?

[Chandan]

If jak trade leads to a better outcome than it wouldn't be a bad trade and nobody would be upset. Except it doesn't.

[nikster]

Because his original point had nothing to do about the trade?

Once again - he is incapable of separating Jakob Poeltl the player from the trade that happened to get him. The man just hates Poeltl for no reason now.

There really is no reason to be upset over something that happened over a year ago.

Exactly. What he was traded for doesn't impact who he is. You can dislike the trade and still understand what he brings to the table.

What he brings to the table is directly tied to the trade, the **** are you talking about? You trade Lebron for a 2nd and that's a steal. You get a 2nd FOR Lebron and you got robbed.

Jak was not worth what he cost us, couple that with the cascading impacts and then it was a bad trade. Trades are evaluated based on the cost, and the quality of the return. His skill set is not good enough to have justified the cost IMO.

You get to say his skill set is the only important thing to discuss, if he was signed outright, and even then it's comparative to his salary. In this case it's both acquisition, and the retention costs. How is this so hard to understand?

Okay you get Lebron as a free agent or a massive haul. You still have a franchise player either way. You now have your roster and move on. What he brings to the court now, what he will bring to the court in the future, and his value as an asset are what matter now.

Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

That quote is about him as a player and should be true whether he was a free agent, acquired for as a free agent or playing for another team entirely. Unless you think him being a free agent changes the fact that he's a "dying breed" and "overall detrimental to a team"

[Johnny Bball]

Content. Ahhhh. Nice post.

[Johnny Bball]

I wonder what that might mean for Jak’s future with the team. I think we need someone with his size and strength for rebounding, defence and finding a shooting 5 at his size that can defend is an extremely rare. From watching the team, I would have thought that passing was the priority with shooting as a close 2nd. I guess if we see Gary back we’ll find out which is a higher priority. In the draft, they might see something in a player’s shot that is very correctable and makes them undervalued.

Improved team defence would allow us to start/play Olynyk more, which gives us shooting from the 5. Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.

I don’t believe you can ever have a successful defence with Kelly at the 5. Kelly is a backup 5 at best and the 4/5 you pair with him better be an elite rim protector. But I do agree Jak is of a dying breed. Right now, I think he’d ideally be on a team like the Grizzlies who got a guy like Ja.

Yep. They are basically starting Olynyk at C to lose against most teams. Kelly is a fine bench player, but he doesn't block shots or defend at the rim very well. He has no help at C out there. He's good agaisnt smaller guys for sure.

But the post you're replying to ...its lol bad, but everything needs balance I guess. You can't have a good defense without an anchor to it.