RealGM

Is it safe to say that Beasley successfully replaced Big Al so far? Or maybe successfully is a wrong word here? I think SCB has taken Al's role of our volume scorer, he scores at a similar efficiency. Both guys don't get themselves on the FT line, don't really rack up assists by passing to their teammates, don't really defend and both can be described as black holes. There's some difference: Beasley allows Love more room to operate in the post compared to Al but Al gave us more rebounds, blocks and a little better FG%. Beasley is cheaper at least for right now.

Thoughts?

He not only filled Als shoes, he has them overflowing with potential.

B Calrissian wrote:He not only filled Als shoes, he has them overflowing with potential.

That's all you can add? Weak!!!

Changing the op to take out "filled Als shoes"..

Funny, in a sad way.

B Calrissian wrote:Changing the op to take out "filled Als shoes"..

Funny, in a sad way.

oh, please, stick to the topic

Turnover_21 wrote:

B Calrissian wrote:He not only filled Als shoes, he has them overflowing with potential.

That's all you can add? Weak!!!

Far from a weak response, B Cal summed it up perfectly. My response, however, is weak.

Did you know that volume scorers playing no defense can be had for 5 second round picks or 2 lower first round picks at most?
You can't buy a mersedes for 20 bucks.

Well they have both been asked to play out of position because of Love... hah, I kid! Actually, I wish it was possible to see Beasley playing PF full-time, I'm curious to see if he really is too small for the position or if his athleticism would allow him to defend. I have no doubts he could score as easily on PF's as SF's, actually probably it would be even easier since it would make his drives that much more effective. But I still think his defensive instincts are those of a 4/5, playing him there would accelerate his learning curve. Of course, I feel pretty safe making this prediction since I don't think we'll see it tested.

Beasley is not a PF. Just that he doesn´t guard SFs well as of now doesn´t mean he´s a PF. He´s just a Small Forward that´s a bad defender.

He´s undersized and underweight for the 4, isn´t a particularly good rebounder and sucks at helpdefense. The Wolves also don´t run Pick and Rolls (which are the primary source of success for athletic 4s). What exactly makes anyone think he would be a good fit at the 4 ? I´d say there´s a much better chance he fixes his issues at the 3 (ballhandling, passing and defense) than him switching to the 4 and getting the living **** bumped out of him on a nightly basis and being effective enough on offense to compensate.

The simple answer is no

shangrila wrote:The simple answer is no

thanks.

Different positions, different stages of development, and different attitudes. Al Jefferson admitted that he "didn't need to pass the ball" when he played for us, whereas Beasley acknowledges that he needs to get his teammates involved. Beas hasn't figured it out yet but.... he's 21, and playing his first season at a new position. Can we wait before we declare the he has the same weaknesses as Big Al?

DaKidKG wrote:Different positions, different stages of development, and different attitudes. Al Jefferson admitted that he "didn't need to pass the ball" when he played for us, whereas Beasley acknowledges that he needs to get his teammates involved. Beas hasn't figured it out yet but.... he's 21, and playing his first season at a new position. Can we wait before we declare the he has the same weaknesses as Big Al?

I included SO FAR in the title and the early similarities are definitely there even despite position diferences. And Big Al also was 21 when he got here.

Beasley's contribution is allowing Love and Darko to flourish in ways that they never could with Al playing.

wilt wrote:Beasley is not a PF. Just that he doesn´t guard SFs well as of now doesn´t mean he´s a PF. He´s just a Small Forward that´s a bad defender.

He´s undersized and underweight for the 4, isn´t a particularly good rebounder and sucks at helpdefense. The Wolves also don´t run Pick and Rolls (which are the primary source of success for athletic 4s). What exactly makes anyone think he would be a good fit at the 4 ? I´d say there´s a much better chance he fixes his issues at the 3 (ballhandling, passing and defense) than him switching to the 4 and getting the living **** bumped out of him on a nightly basis and being effective enough on offense to compensate.

Well he was one of the most dominant big men in college ball, so there's some chance he can play the position. He might get a little bruised, but I think he can take it.

Turnover_21 wrote:

shangrila wrote:The simple answer is no

thanks.

Your welcome