It is fair.
Us being a good team is completely theoretical at this point. I have high hopes, but until they prove it all skepticism is very valid.
Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
- S.W.A.N
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,696
- And1: 3,282
- Joined: Aug 11, 2004
- Location: Sick Wicked And Nasty
-
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,886
- And1: 1,687
- Joined: Dec 13, 2013
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
The one thing I've never heard, which almost seems very odd, is why haven't we locked Jak in the gym every off-season and forced him to work on his 3. Hes a smart player, I guarantee if he works hard enough for a few years hell become respectable. Weve invested in him so much, why isn't this already being done, id bet he's willing
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 23,982
- And1: 24,320
- Joined: Jun 28, 2014
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
nivisi9 wrote:Thoughts?
Does Lowe make some good points on being pessimistic for this season?
What are some of the most convincing reasons for optimism?
Everything Zach Lowe has said is valid and the same reservations that were voiced by posters on this board about trying to build from the middle.
The case for optimism is that this team could probably be a better defensive team than anticipated. (We’ll need to be because the offence will be ugly). Yes we have 3 poor defenders in the starting lineup but a big part of defence is the scheme and effort.
The other case for optimism is that the East is just plain bad. We might do better then expected because of attrition from other teams.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 99,516
- And1: 73,264
- Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
canada_dry wrote:Around. 500 in that 6-10th seed range is basically the expectation though no? 45 wins would be considered a really good season. 40-43 most likely. We hopefully build from there.
Id take a top 12-14 defense. I'd take an offense that isn't bottom 5 at least. We move from there.
What more are people expecting?
Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app
vegas over/under is 37.5
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 99,516
- And1: 73,264
- Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
WiggOuts wrote:The one thing I've never heard, which almost seems very odd, is why haven't we locked Jak in the gym every off-season and forced him to work on his 3. Hes a smart player, I guarantee if he works hard enough for a few years hell become respectable. Weve invested in him so much, why isn't this already being done, id bet he's willing
you can work on somethng non stop for years and still not get better at it - or at least good enough to actually make a difference.
hard work is still limited by actual talent. some guys just can't do it otherwise everyone would be able to shoot - and i'm sure they've all worked hard trying to get better.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,259
- And1: 4,655
- Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
There's cetainly a lot of homerism here.
While I think we are likely play-in bound with some room to improve, I think Zach Lowe is certainly fair in his assessment. It scares the living **** out of me that so much of our season centrally depend on a guy who's been one of the most injury prone in the league. He's not going to magically get healthier all of a sudden just cause he moves teams when our team had its share of injuries. All we can do is pray we get lucky with health. And even when healthy, the fit is questionable and something that remains to be seen. For example, it doesn't bode well when we use a pick we shamelessly tanked for (which still failed due to Barnes' insistence to play 65 games) to draft a guy who occupies similar space as our best guy and largely renders Mogbo obsolete. Still don't know why we drafted the guy when there was a guy in Filipkowski who was a better players/prospect/fit available. Barrett's another guy with questionable fit with addition of Ingram and our general lack of shooting is no secret. Then the defense so many people tout was one of the best late in the season is largely a mirage IMO when you account for the fact large chunk of competition late in the season were teams that were tanking even harder/better than we were and our lineups featured guys that wouldn't see the floor as much if all goes right health-wise.
So all in all, there are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic especially if you are outside looking in.
While I think we are likely play-in bound with some room to improve, I think Zach Lowe is certainly fair in his assessment. It scares the living **** out of me that so much of our season centrally depend on a guy who's been one of the most injury prone in the league. He's not going to magically get healthier all of a sudden just cause he moves teams when our team had its share of injuries. All we can do is pray we get lucky with health. And even when healthy, the fit is questionable and something that remains to be seen. For example, it doesn't bode well when we use a pick we shamelessly tanked for (which still failed due to Barnes' insistence to play 65 games) to draft a guy who occupies similar space as our best guy and largely renders Mogbo obsolete. Still don't know why we drafted the guy when there was a guy in Filipkowski who was a better players/prospect/fit available. Barrett's another guy with questionable fit with addition of Ingram and our general lack of shooting is no secret. Then the defense so many people tout was one of the best late in the season is largely a mirage IMO when you account for the fact large chunk of competition late in the season were teams that were tanking even harder/better than we were and our lineups featured guys that wouldn't see the floor as much if all goes right health-wise.
So all in all, there are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic especially if you are outside looking in.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,886
- And1: 1,687
- Joined: Dec 13, 2013
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
djsunyc wrote:WiggOuts wrote:The one thing I've never heard, which almost seems very odd, is why haven't we locked Jak in the gym every off-season and forced him to work on his 3. Hes a smart player, I guarantee if he works hard enough for a few years hell become respectable. Weve invested in him so much, why isn't this already being done, id bet he's willing
you can work on somethng non stop for years and still not get better at it - or at least good enough to actually make a difference.
hard work is still limited by actual talent. some guys just can't do it otherwise everyone would be able to shoot - and i'm sure they've all worked hard trying to get better.
And I respect that but I've just never heard a single thing about it, it would be good to know that they at least explored that option. You've heard of lots of less talented players over the years working on that "summer 3", and even shooting them in developmental seasons. He can't much worse than Scottie/CMB/Mogbo
I wouldn't be surprised if Jak is one of those guys who's just not capable, he's a poor ft shooter so he fits the bill. I hope they're not afraid to rattle his confidence or something
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,104
- And1: 13,738
- Joined: Apr 10, 2021
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
WiggOuts wrote:djsunyc wrote:WiggOuts wrote:The one thing I've never heard, which almost seems very odd, is why haven't we locked Jak in the gym every off-season and forced him to work on his 3. Hes a smart player, I guarantee if he works hard enough for a few years hell become respectable. Weve invested in him so much, why isn't this already being done, id bet he's willing
you can work on somethng non stop for years and still not get better at it - or at least good enough to actually make a difference.
hard work is still limited by actual talent. some guys just can't do it otherwise everyone would be able to shoot - and i'm sure they've all worked hard trying to get better.
And I respect that but I've just never heard a single thing about it, it would be good to know that they at least explored that option. You've heard of lots of less talented players over the years working on that "summer 3", and even shooting them in developmental seasons. He can't much worse than Scottie/CMB/Mogbo
I wouldn't be surprised if Jak is one of those guys who's just not capable, he's a poor ft shooter so he fits the bill. I hope they're not afraid to rattle his confidence or something
Poeltl has never shot threes in games and is a horrible FT shooter. He’s been in the league a long time now with two great franchises and both didn’t want him taking threes. That tells me he’s just not good enough. There are plenty of Centers in the league that don’t shoot threes. It’s not an issue. Poeltl would be less effective if they parked him behind the three point line.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,226
- And1: 1,916
- Joined: Jun 03, 2002
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
kalel123 wrote:There's cetainly a lot of homerism here.
While I think we are likely play-in bound with some room to improve, I think Zach Lowe is certainly fair in his assessment. It scares the living **** out of me that so much of our season centrally depend on a guy who's been one of the most injury prone in the league. He's not going to magically get healthier all of a sudden just cause he moves teams when our team had its share of injuries. All we can do is pray we get lucky with health. And even when healthy, the fit is questionable and something that remains to be seen. For example, it doesn't bode well when we use a pick we shamelessly tanked for (which still failed due to Barnes' insistence to play 65 games) to draft a guy who occupies similar space as our best guy and largely renders Mogbo obsolete. Still don't know why we drafted the guy when there was a guy in Filipkowski who was a better players/prospect/fit available. Barrett's another guy with questionable fit with addition of Ingram and our general lack of shooting is no secret. Then the defense so many people tout was one of the best late in the season is largely a mirage IMO when you account for the fact large chunk of competition late in the season were teams that were tanking even harder/better than we were and our lineups featured guys that wouldn't see the floor as much if all goes right health-wise.
So all in all, there are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic especially if you are outside looking in.
When the Raps traded OG & Pascal, they lost 2 players with similar size and ability to guard multiple positions like Barnes. I think the picks of Mogbo and CMB, are the FO just trying to reestablish that size and versatility on D.
The problem with Filipkowski or Maluach, is like most C's they are limited in their use. Unless they are a dominant player like Jokic or Embiid, it is hard to keep them on the floor in the modern NBA. A decent C is still needed at certain moments in the game, and especially if facing one of the better C's in the game, but otherwise, they just are not as of much use. I'm sure the team would be more comfortable with a combo of Barnes and CMB/Mogbo on the floor than either of Filipkowski or Maluach.
So, why waste a draft pick on a straight C, when they already had a competent one in Poeltl. And they couldn't replace Poeltl with a rookie, as the rookie could never fill those shoes.
RJ's fit, while not perfect, still addresses a major weakness for the team. Nobody can get to the basket, and apply rim pressure and draw fouls like RJ.
Ingram's fit is his jump shooting. Until Gradey or Walter can be trusted to fill that role, BI will help in the short term.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
- Harry Palmer
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 42,621
- And1: 5,947
- Joined: Sep 16, 2004
- Location: It’s all a bit vague.
Re: Did Zach Lowe identify some convincing points for being low on Raptors?
I don’t see the plan, I think we’re pretty locked in to a low ceiling mehburger. I really don’t see any design unfolding, we feel like a placeholder that teams that might matter will play against. I don’t see anything we’ll be particularly good at, nor do I see us competing for lottery balls. As for things like ‘team spirit’, underrated, or w/e, find me a team whose fans don’t think that about their team when their team is neither very good or very bad. Feels very..say it with me…treadmill.
Otoh I would probably have been even more pessimistic about the Jays, so…
Otoh I would probably have been even more pessimistic about the Jays, so…