ImageImageImage

Modern basketball in MIN

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,735
And1: 2,289
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#21 » by minimus » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:17 am

KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.


Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
Biff Cooper
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,371
And1: 89
Joined: Jan 02, 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#22 » by Biff Cooper » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:59 pm

minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.


Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.


I thought the videos you posted were quite interesting and makes a lot of sense for the Wolves strengths on the offense. Once an opponent knows exactly what you are doing and where you are going to be going on the floor, it will lose a lot of it's effectiveness. I could potentially see this as a base motion offensive philosophy with a bunch or variations sprinkled in to keep the defense guessing.
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 10,541
And1: 2,236
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#23 » by Jedzz » Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:36 pm

GooniousMaximus wrote:maybe move Memphis east and one of Milwaukee or Chicago west? maybe even New Orleans east but that's tough since is similar to Mil/Chi. the western conf divisions are terrible, without an expansion it'd be tough to break it up more other than changing up the divisions.


'I think you are right. I'm not currently a fan of the divisions. Right now I don't feel like I know that much about teams like Nuggets and Blazers other then what their big names are like, and why should i? Games against them don't seem to matter anymore than any other west team. I don't see the point and really don't like the time difference. Not sure what can be done about that.

Maybe for a big change, they could shorten the amount of regular season games. Then drop down to 12 playoff teams by instead taking the top two teams of each division by record (only comparing the records to each in a division), say right at the beginning of March, and start a double elimination tournament of 3 game series. Each series happens within the span of one week (a round). This might use up the remaining typical season and playoff period we know now, but a larger percentage of the season will be tournament play. It puts extensive pressure on the division records and rivalries from October through February because if you aren't in the top two of your division, you are on the couch starting in March. Nobody wants to watch your failing butts any longer anyway at that point. The twelve teams play out a double elimination bracket in 3 game series. In what could be the final round, the winner of the no-loss bracket takes on the winner of the one-loss bracket. If the no-loss team wins that series of 3, it's over. If the one-loss team beats the no-loss bracket leader, they go to a final elimination 7 game series of half-time games to duke it out. Ultimately that could mean up to ten straight games between the last two teams. Although the final 7 game elimination series, if needed, would only have half the running time. 4 periods of 6 minutes each, and run them successively with no days off in between. Up to 7 days of feverishly paced basketball finals games. However, in the years were the no-loss bracket winner beats the one-loss bracket winner we won't get a 7 game series at all.

I think one good thing that comes from this is that there would be no East or West at all. The focus is put on the divisions and greatly amplifies the importance of early season play. It also jumps the league into Tourney level play sonner, and maybe removes the length of time "tanking" teams are wasting everyone's time and money. You want to tank? Fine, but that's a lot less revenue for you too. The same goes for teams using slow-boat development periods like 5 years to build a team. That's 5 years of only October through February play and missing out on 5 years of all those extra revenue games. Best build that team faster, widen your talent search, and get less stupid with your contract dollars.
johanliebert
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,520
And1: 2,938
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#24 » by johanliebert » Thu Oct 3, 2019 8:47 pm

minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.


Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.

why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,735
And1: 2,289
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#25 » by minimus » Fri Oct 4, 2019 8:57 am

johanliebert wrote:
minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.


Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.

why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.


I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#26 » by KGdaBom » Fri Oct 4, 2019 3:38 pm

minimus wrote:
johanliebert wrote:
minimus wrote:
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.

why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.


I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.

Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,735
And1: 2,289
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#27 » by minimus » Fri Oct 4, 2019 5:03 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
johanliebert wrote:why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.


I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.

Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.


This is how we ended up with Thibs
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#28 » by KGdaBom » Fri Oct 4, 2019 8:51 pm

minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.

Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.


This is how we ended up with Thibs

IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,735
And1: 2,289
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#29 » by minimus » Sat Oct 5, 2019 6:34 am

KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.


This is how we ended up with Thibs

IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.


I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.

Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.

You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.

Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#30 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 3:44 pm

minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
This is how we ended up with Thibs

IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.


I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.

Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.

You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.

Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.

I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#31 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 3:48 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.


I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.

Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.

You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.

Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.

I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.

As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.
minimus
General Manager
Posts: 8,735
And1: 2,289
Joined: Jan 28, 2011
Location: Germany, Stuttgart area
 

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#32 » by minimus » Sat Oct 5, 2019 3:55 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:
I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.

Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.

You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.

Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.

I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.

As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.


Technically we have a new head coach. Just deal with it, lol. I know your pessimism about Rosas, Ryan, KAT, Taylor and my English can be overwhelming, but KGdaBom, it won't ruin mine optimism. So deal with it too
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,270
And1: 12,325
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#33 » by Klomp » Sat Oct 5, 2019 4:08 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.


As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.

Maybe not "complete" but it absolutely was an overhaul. Replaced 7 players on a 15-man roster. Only one who remains from the coaching staff is Saunders. Only one who remains from the front office is Layden.

You rarely see bigger overhauls than that in professional sports.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#34 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 5:10 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
minimus wrote:That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.


As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.

Maybe not "complete" but it absolutely was an overhaul. Replaced 7 players on a 15-man roster. Only one who remains from the coaching staff is Saunders. Only one who remains from the front office is Layden.

You rarely see bigger overhauls than that in professional sports.

It was IMO a minor overhaul. Head coach remains the same he is the one calling the shots unless he's just a puppet with Rosas calling all the shots.
It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#35 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 5:12 pm

minimus wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.

As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.


Technically we have a new head coach. Just deal with it, lol. I know your pessimism about Rosas, Ryan, KAT, Taylor and my English can be overwhelming, but KGdaBom, it won't ruin mine optimism. So deal with it too

This had nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. I'm sure I'm more optimistic about this team than you. Check my post in the predictions thread. You are correct I don't like Rosas, Ryan or Taylor. Where on earth did you get the idea that I am pessimistic about KAT.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,270
And1: 12,325
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#36 » by Klomp » Sat Oct 5, 2019 5:44 pm

KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.

Taj Gibson/Dario Saric
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#37 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 6:54 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.

Taj Gibson/Dario Saric

To me last years starters were KAT, RoCo, Wiggins, Okogie, and Teague. However, I know that Dario was starting part of the time. Didn't Okogie start a number of games? So I grant that one Fringe starter was moved.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,270
And1: 12,325
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#38 » by Klomp » Sat Oct 5, 2019 7:09 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.

Taj Gibson/Dario Saric

To me last years starters were KAT, RoCo, Wiggins, Okogie, and Teague. However, I know that Dario was starting part of the time. Didn't Okogie start a number of games? So I grant that one Fringe starter was moved.


2018-19 starts
PG: Teague 41, Jones 23, Rose 13, Bayless 6, Canaan 1
SG/SF: Wiggins 73, Okogie 52, Covington 22, Butler 10, Bates-Diop 3, Deng 2
PF/C: Towns 77, Gibson 57, Saric 28, Dieng 2
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 12,130
And1: 2,511
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#39 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 5, 2019 7:58 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
Klomp wrote:Taj Gibson/Dario Saric

To me last years starters were KAT, RoCo, Wiggins, Okogie, and Teague. However, I know that Dario was starting part of the time. Didn't Okogie start a number of games? So I grant that one Fringe starter was moved.


2018-19 starts
PG: Teague 41, Jones 23, Rose 13, Bayless 6, Canaan 1
SG/SF: Wiggins 73, Okogie 52, Covington 22, Butler 10, Bates-Diop 3, Deng 2
PF/C: Towns 77, Gibson 57, Saric 28, Dieng 2

Thanks. Obviously RoCo and Teague are starters, but didn't have many starts due to injuries. In lineups where we started Gibson or Saric at PF then the lineup was KAT/(Gibson/Saric), RoCo, Wiggins, Teague so I will grant that we lost a starter. To be fair to myself you can see how I was looking at the starters as the ones I stated above.
wolfen
Senior
Posts: 656
And1: 195
Joined: Apr 05, 2014
     

Re: Modern basketball in MIN 

Post#40 » by wolfen » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:35 pm

Essentially, it's my reaction after watching the first 2 game of pre-season, which of course, mean next to nothing, but knee jerk reactions for me are:

Positive
-Napier - Really like what I see from him. Always attacking, probing, and trying to score. Way less hesitant than Teague.
-Culver - Mostly positive, but there are some negatives too. He's smart and instinctive on both ends, I'll start with that. The shot looks pretty good. I like his slinkiness on the pick and roll to both find a crease to pass and also to get a bucket. Finishing is ok but it will get better, as he is so smart and will get stronger over time. Sometimes I wish he'd "go quicker" when he gets the ball, he tends to slow down possessions with the ball in his hands, and defenses can re-organize. Overall I like what I see and believe that he will greatly improve over time.
-Jake Layman - Really nice all-around player and good athlete. Love the cutting, running, shooting, and quick decision making, keeps the ball moving, the anti-Wiggins.
-Contracts - Rosas and co are looking smart right now with the free agents we signed because most of them are short term deals, kicking the tires if you will. The goal is to eventually have the dough to sign another star, and one year contracts will allow us to do that at some point, while kicking the tires on guys and finding the occassional diamond in the rough in those signings. Right now Napier is looking like he has a chance to be diamond worthy, and hopefully Bell will be too. I can already tell that I'm glad we signed Vonleh and the rest of the FA's to just one year contracts, and on the cheap. Can't imagine having any of those guys signed to a multi-year deal for millions a la Gorgui. The one guy they did sign to a multi-year deal - Layman - is going to be a massive value player for 3 years at less than 5 mil a season. You think the Cov contract is a value contract at 12 mil a year? Layman will prove to be equal-value dollar-wise over the next few years.

Yet TBD
-Jordan Bell: I REALLY hope he is what I think he is - a tough and athletic defender who takes pride on that end of the floor. We SORELY need an athletic big who can defend, rebound, block shots, and guard multiple positions. Because right now KAT, Vonleh, Reid, Gorgs, and KBD all look terrible on defense right now (again, yes, it's pre-season). Frankly, if Bell turns out to be legit, we could make the playoffs. If he is just ok, no chance, here's hoping JB turns out to be a stud right out of the gate.

Negative
-Defense: Don't even know where to start, other than by saying ugh. Unfortunately, the faster you play on offense, the more tired you get, and poorer defense you play. Guys better get into shape quick, the scheme needs to be learned.
-Noah Vonleh - Defensive instincts aren't that great, at that height and size he should be a rim protector but he just isn't. Instincts in general are just average. He's an all-airport guy - the kind of guys that when they walk off the plane on the runway and you look at them, they look like they are complete basketball studs. But then they get on the floor and ugh.
-Nowell - plays hard and looks to have defensive potential, but his offensive style may not work well in the nba. In college he could get by guys, rise up, and make buckets. He's having trouble even getting shots off as of now.
-KAT: He's trying to play too much "new style" hoops on offense, and his defense is matador as of right now. Yes, he can shoot from anywhere - and that needs to include in the post and on the baseline. "5 out" is cool, but if you've got a stud who can score down low, "41" still provides tons of spacing and takes advantage of shooters all around the perimeter AND the post player.
-Covington - I hope it's because he's still coming back after injury, but right now he's almost worthless on the offensive end. Looks slow, weak, and just does nothing with the ball to put any pressure on the defense.

Rambling on now... Cheers!

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves