Page 1 of 2
Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:07 pm
by shrink
After watching last night's game, I've finally reached the point that I don't think McCants and Wittman can co-exist. In his twelve seconds of 2nd half action, McCants' took two tough shots, early in the shot-click lwhich ed to an immediate benching, and the expression on McCants face "Why? What'd I do?" That tells me he's not going to accept anything Wittman does.
I feel like McCants is never going to be anything under Wittman, which is frustrating because the kid has talent inside him. Unfortunately, time is running out for our final decision on the guy. If we want to trade him, we only have two months for him to reeclaim some of his value (or sink even further?), and at the end of this year, we need to decide whether we want to make him a qualifying offer, or lose him for nothing.
So are Wittman and McCants mutually exclusive? Or maybe they both need to go? Please vote.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:21 pm
by the_bruce
They can't coexist. I'd keep McCants and re-evaluate his value under a new coach. Or if the wolves kept the same coach, I'd go with trading him.
Coaching and system is a huge factor and the coach isn't using the players correctly. I mean look at NYK for godsakes?
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:43 pm
by Basti
fire Wittman and see what happens...
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:39 pm
by theGreatRC
We need a coach that can implement a run n gun system.
How good did we look against running teams last year? (rhetorical question)
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:51 pm
by 4ho5ive
I dont think a run and gun is the answer. Our best player and Kevlar would not be able to keep pace. Jefferson is a half court big man no doubt about it. He is not near the athlete Amare is while Amare isnt the offenive technician that Al is. There isnt a big man on this roster that could keep up in an up tempo offense. Love, Craig, Al, Collins, Booth, Madsen, hell even Gomes i think would have trouble.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:07 pm
by casey
McCants was nothing under Casey either. Obviously Wittman is a horrible coach, but it's not like McCants is even a mediocre player. He's garbage.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:17 pm
by deeney0
They both need to go. I'm interested in seeing what Al, Miller, Love, Brewer, Foye, Bassy, Carney, Collins, and Ollie can do with a new coach. And those are the only 9 I would play.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:41 pm
by 4ho5ive
deeney0 wrote:They both need to go. I'm interested in seeing what Al, Miller, Love, Brewer, Foye, Bassy, Carney, Collins, and Ollie can do with a new coach. And those are the only 9 I would play.
What? you mean to tell me you DONT like Wittman playing all of them in the 1st 5 minutes of a game? Why, thats crazy.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:27 am
by NERD21
deeney0 wrote:They both need to go. I'm interested in seeing what Al, Miller, Love, Brewer, Foye, Bassy, Carney, Collins, and Ollie can do with a new coach. And those are the only 9 I would play.
No Craig Smith?
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:22 pm
by john2jer
Unfortunately Twit and Rashad can't co-exist. Twit clearly isn't our coach of the future, he hasn't shown anything so far this season. There's absolutely no reason to keep him around unless our plan is to tank the season and try and win the lottery in a weak class. He's not even developing our players now.
Start looking through the options that are out there and find a long term solution as a coach.
Also, I'd hate to see McCants go to a team like Golden State or the Knicks and completely blow up in a fast paced offense.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:09 pm
by TrentTuckerForever
bruceallen61 wrote: I'd keep McCants and re-evaluate his value under a new coach.
QTF. We know what Wittman is. McCants could still pan out.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:51 pm
by mandurugo
casey wrote:McCants was nothing under Casey either. Obviously Wittman is a horrible coach, but it's not like McCants is even a mediocre player. He's garbage.
I'm not sure I disagree - but comparing him to the nuggets I think he is a slightly better version of JR Smith.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:58 pm
by C.lupus
I don't see either one having a long future here but the smart thing to do is to replace the coach (and maybe GM) first, then let the new guy determine which players fit his coaching style/vision.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:32 pm
by casey
mandurugo wrote:casey wrote:McCants was nothing under Casey either. Obviously Wittman is a horrible coach, but it's not like McCants is even a mediocre player. He's garbage.
I'm not sure I disagree - but comparing him to the nuggets I think he is a slightly better version of JR Smith.
I was thinking about that comparison last night too. I'm not sure how you can say he's any better than Smith though.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:55 pm
by shrink
I remember when everyone used to gush about JR Smith when he entered the league, and even when he would just stand around in New Orleans unless he had the ball in his hands, some people still gasped at the occasional thunder-dunk. I was surprised when DEN traded value for him (I chalked him up as a wash-out), and even more surprised how well he did there, in and admittedly easy role.
I think there are comparisons to be made between he and McCants. Smith is the better athlete (though McCants is athletic as well), and they both have great scoring ability trapped inside weird egos. McCants seems to be a harder worker. I think if JR was here, he'd do even worse than McCants.
One last thing. We bash on McCants a lot for doing dumb things, and that's legit. But I think we give him a harder time because he has raised our expectations. If Carney suddenly put in McCants season from last year, scoring 15 PPG off the bench, we'd probably not be so quick to jump on him when he puts up that ill-advised 3-pointer early in the shot clock. It doesn't make McCants any less frustrating.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:05 pm
by casey
shrink wrote:One last thing. We bash on McCants a lot for doing dumb things, and that's legit. But I think we give him a harder time because he has raised our expectations. If Carney suddenly put in McCants season from last year, scoring 15 PPG off the bench, we'd probably not be so quick to jump on him when he puts up that ill-advised 3-pointer early in the shot clock. It doesn't make McCants any less frustrating.
I think that has more to do with how low of expectations we have for Carney. We got him for free, while we spent a lottery pick on McCants. I think people's expectations for Rashad have been about where they should be.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:20 am
by D1SGRUNTL3D
I'm with Casey on this one.
First I start by getting rid of McFail and Twitt.
I then start selling McCants AND Foye.
I start all the way ever. I want a real Portland like draft in 09. If we buy and sell picks, come out with a top flight PG and Big man, and a stud SG, we're in for a big turn around.
The last 4 drafts have been a disaster. All 4 lotto picks cant even start on this team 1-8 team.
We need to keep our talent we draft high, not trade it for somethin lower and some bit pieces.
Get rid of Miller also. We could have an unbelievable amount of draft picks next year and really turn face of this franchise around, rid of the entire Mcfail and twitt era
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:08 am
by shrink
McCants was drafted 14th in 2005
Carney was drafted 16th in 2006
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:16 pm
by revprodeji
I think we get frustrated because we know Shad could do more. He has so much offensive talent. he could get a decent shot off almost every time down the floor. That is a crazy tool.
Re: Wittman v McCants
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:11 pm
by deeney0
shrink wrote:McCants was drafted 14th in 2005
Carney was drafted 16th in 2006
But we didn't spend #16 on Carney. Essentially, we spent nothing. We DID spend #14 on McCants. The today-value from the Wolves perspective has a huge difference even if the initial value was similar.