PG: Raptors win in OT

[Boogie!]

My point was there’s certain posters that love aggressively calling people out for being “negative” when you criticize certain players and yet I don’t see any of them here protecting iq from that negativity.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

But the truth is invariably more complex than they like to admit. IQ is a guy who has been a positive-EV guy for us, even if he is maddeningly inconsistent. But that's what happens with a small guard who mostly shoots threes, even well. So we need to accept our guys, flaws and all, while we have them. We don't have a superstar, so we're already working with inherently flawed and lower-ceiling guys. We have to internalize that, and appreciate what they do well while acknowledging their weaknesses.

I agree, but it’s also fair to call someone out if they legitimately aren’t very good without having to deal with the backlash of just being “negative.” For example, a guy like gradey dick is just not a good player. I’m not gonna sit here and accept watching him get minutes that he doesn’t deserve when there are players on the bench that can be just as productive if not better but are not given a chance to play because of politics. So yes I will criticize him, and it has nothing to do with being “negative” for the sake of it.

[Agimat]

Love that Ingram, while on the sidelines (a very familiar territory for him) realized this isn’t the Pelicans racking up Ls anymore. He’s in a real winning culture now, with a young core growing alongside him and SB leading the way.

Is it just me or does the guy always have a Tim Hortons cup in his hand when he’s not playing lol

Now that you mention it, checked previous games highlights and he actually does lol

[God Squad]

My point was there’s certain posters that love aggressively calling people out for being “negative” when you criticize certain players and yet I don’t see any of them here protecting iq from that negativity.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

But the truth is invariably more complex than they like to admit. IQ is a guy who has been a positive-EV guy for us, even if he is maddeningly inconsistent. But that's what happens with a small guard who mostly shoots threes, even well. So we need to accept our guys, flaws and all, while we have them. We don't have a superstar, so we're already working with inherently flawed and lower-ceiling guys. We have to internalize that, and appreciate what they do well while acknowledging their weaknesses.

I agree, but it’s also fair to call someone out if they legitimately aren’t very good without having to deal with the backlash of just being “negative.” For example, a guy like gradey dick is just not a good player. I’m not gonna sit here and accept watching him get minutes that he doesn’t deserve when there are players on the bench that can be just as productive if not better but are not given a chance to play because of politics. So yes I will criticize him, and it has nothing to do with being “negative” for the sake of it.

Weird example because I think most poster would agree with this. BUT, you're right with him getting extended looks, even though he hasn't been good. The politics with Gradey are real.

What sucks is I don't know about JaKobe either. From what I've seen this year, I'm not sold on either of them. The issue is you're not getting a good player without salaries matching. That's why IQ, RJ, and Jakob's names keep being mentioned. I have an idea of what we need to improve, but not sure how to go about it (who to trade/match salaries).

[Merit]

20/5/7, he shot the ball bad but he wasn’t terrible at all.

I dont want "fine"

I want good - great

Definitely not terrible

But if theres an all star PG out there, bring him in, IQ is expendable and so is Dick Abgaji and Walter

Keep walter, but otherwise agreed.

[tsherkin]

I agree, but it’s also fair to call someone out if they legitimately aren’t very good without having to deal with the backlash of just being “negative.”

Also fair.

For example, a guy like gradey dick is just not a good player. I’m not gonna sit here and accept watching him get minutes that he doesn’t deserve when there are players on the bench that can be just as productive if not better but are not given a chance to play because of politics. So yes I will criticize him, and it has nothing to do with being “negative” for the sake of it.

I am inclined to agree with that. I think it's just a delicate balance to strike, you know? If all a given poster (generic poster, not you) does is make negative remarks, then that will create a certain perception and reaction, you know?

[Merit]

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

But the truth is invariably more complex than they like to admit. IQ is a guy who has been a positive-EV guy for us, even if he is maddeningly inconsistent. But that's what happens with a small guard who mostly shoots threes, even well. So we need to accept our guys, flaws and all, while we have them. We don't have a superstar, so we're already working with inherently flawed and lower-ceiling guys. We have to internalize that, and appreciate what they do well while acknowledging their weaknesses.

I agree, but it’s also fair to call someone out if they legitimately aren’t very good without having to deal with the backlash of just being “negative.” For example, a guy like gradey dick is just not a good player. I’m not gonna sit here and accept watching him get minutes that he doesn’t deserve when there are players on the bench that can be just as productive if not better but are not given a chance to play because of politics. So yes I will criticize him, and it has nothing to do with being “negative” for the sake of it.

Weird example because I think most poster would agree with this. BUT, you're right with him getting extended looks, even though he hasn't been good. The politics with Gradey are real.

What sucks is I don't know about JaKobe either. From what I've seen this year, I'm not sold on either of them. The issue is you're not getting a good player without salaries matching. That's why IQ, RJ, and Jakob's names keep being mentioned. I have an idea of what we need to improve, but not sure how to go about it (who to trade/match salaries).

We don’t see practices so we don’t really know. For all we know, gradey is being showcased for a trade. There are many possibilities. Initially I had hoped for a Gordon Hayward trajectory with Gradey since he’s way more creative than we give him credit for. However, he’s just not strong enough yet and hasn’t developed counters or a handle. He does try defensively though - gotta give him that. His getting blocked on a breakaway dunk last game was an example of why I’m not too interested in what he has to offer.

I happen to like Jakobe more than Gradey. He’s at least hitting open shots and is far more consistent defensively. He’s also a year younger than Gradey, though they’re both super young. In terms of developmental trajectory, both have value. Sadly, like you said, Gradey is more likely to be traded because his salary helps match in trades.

[tsherkin]

We don’t see practices so we don’t really know. For all we know, gradey is being showcased for a trade. There are many possibilities. Initially I had hoped for a Gordon Hayward trajectory with Gradey since he’s way more creative than we give him credit for. However, he’s just not strong enough yet and hasn’t developed counters or a handle. He does try defensively though - gotta give him that. His getting blocked on a breakaway dunk last game was an example of why I’m not too interested in what he has to offer.

It isn't a strength issue. His biggest problem is his inability to make shots when there is even the faintest contest. That's a far larger problem. If he were shooting capably from 3, he'd be considerably more tolerable.

[Merit]

We don’t see practices so we don’t really know. For all we know, gradey is being showcased for a trade. There are many possibilities. Initially I had hoped for a Gordon Hayward trajectory with Gradey since he’s way more creative than we give him credit for. However, he’s just not strong enough yet and hasn’t developed counters or a handle. He does try defensively though - gotta give him that. His getting blocked on a breakaway dunk last game was an example of why I’m not too interested in what he has to offer.

It isn't a strength issue. His biggest problem is his inability to make shots when there is even the faintest contest. That's a far larger problem. If he were shooting capably from 3, he'd be considerably more tolerable.

I mean, he definitely needs to hit a shot. I guess I was considering that an “asset” of his, but you’re right - he can’t shoot either.

[Tripod]

If Poeltl can stay healthy, we don't even need another C with the additions of CMB/Mamu. Problem is Poeltl can't stay healthy.

I'm hoping we get a large on-ball guard in the draft considering that seems to be the deepest archetype so far.

If you were to look at my posting history, you would see that I have had this opinion for awhile.

I have had the opinion that we need another "big" C on the roster BECAUSE common sense says Yak won't play 82 games a season in any year.

I 100% was for adding Mamu and even suggested it(and Bassey) before he ever signed. I thought he would be a good small ball backup C who could shoot to give us a different look. Him added to Barnes and CMB, lots of small ball guys we can throw at C while another plays PF with that C.

But we never prepared for if Yak got hurt AND we needed a big C to go against guys who are just too physically big or strong for Mamu, Barnes or CMB. Having the OPTION of throwing in a different guy for those matchups is what I wanted....and have for awhile.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want 2 7ft guys out of your 18 guy roster in case you NEED another big body at C. Even if it's to save some wear and tear on Barnes, Mamu, and CMB.

We have so many guards and forwards...a bunch that don't play...wishing for 1 less while having 1 more big C in case we need it, isn't a crazy ask.

Yak will miss more games after he comes back and every year after. We are equipped to play small ball in his absence with lots of options. We however are not prepared to replace his size and be big. I just want to to have that option when the matchup dictates it. That's all.

Sure, but it's also not a pressing need. If we're needing to play a scrub big in the first place, that's already not good for us. Anything a Nick Richards gives you in rebounding and some rim protection is given back up in the various other ways that he sucks. That basically applies to practically all 3rd string C's. Playing the 5 here requires more than what these scrub bigs provide, you need to make reads in this offense and have some flexibility to guard on the perimeter. Anyone actually useful is going to cost more significant assets and likely has a cap number hard to fit in and then you have to ask whether it's worth allocating those kind of resources for a 3rd string C in the first place. I still expect us to do something but I also expect whoever we get to basically never play.

You have this odd belief that the 3rd C HAS to be a scrub or make money.

Ochai, Gradey, Battle, Mogbo, Martin, Hepburn...that's 6 guys end of the rotation, depth or 2-ways. It's not a crazy idea to not have one of them and instead have a C. It's a real easy concept...18 roster spots, fill 2 with actual big C's because Yak WILL miss games. And we WILL have matchups where the opponents size impacts the game. Or do we ignore JV cooking the Raps before getting hurt in the Denver game?

Once it was clear Chomche was not going to be an option, we should have made a move. Given he wasn't playing, we should have drafted one/ grabbed one with a 2-way. We have lacked C depth for years and still lack it to ge FLEXIBLE vs certain matchups.

And again, I use Martin as an example. We grabbed him with a 2nd and he came in when needed and helped us gut out a win. Why can't we go find a C to do the similar thing?

[PushDaRock]

If you were to look at my posting history, you would see that I have had this opinion for awhile.

I have had the opinion that we need another "big" C on the roster BECAUSE common sense says Yak won't play 82 games a season in any year.

I 100% was for adding Mamu and even suggested it(and Bassey) before he ever signed. I thought he would be a good small ball backup C who could shoot to give us a different look. Him added to Barnes and CMB, lots of small ball guys we can throw at C while another plays PF with that C.

But we never prepared for if Yak got hurt AND we needed a big C to go against guys who are just too physically big or strong for Mamu, Barnes or CMB. Having the OPTION of throwing in a different guy for those matchups is what I wanted....and have for awhile.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want 2 7ft guys out of your 18 guy roster in case you NEED another big body at C. Even if it's to save some wear and tear on Barnes, Mamu, and CMB.

We have so many guards and forwards...a bunch that don't play...wishing for 1 less while having 1 more big C in case we need it, isn't a crazy ask.

Yak will miss more games after he comes back and every year after. We are equipped to play small ball in his absence with lots of options. We however are not prepared to replace his size and be big. I just want to to have that option when the matchup dictates it. That's all.

Sure, but it's also not a pressing need. If we're needing to play a scrub big in the first place, that's already not good for us. Anything a Nick Richards gives you in rebounding and some rim protection is given back up in the various other ways that he sucks. That basically applies to practically all 3rd string C's. Playing the 5 here requires more than what these scrub bigs provide, you need to make reads in this offense and have some flexibility to guard on the perimeter. Anyone actually useful is going to cost more significant assets and likely has a cap number hard to fit in and then you have to ask whether it's worth allocating those kind of resources for a 3rd string C in the first place. I still expect us to do something but I also expect whoever we get to basically never play.

You have this odd belief that the 3rd C HAS to be a scrub or make money.

Ochai, Gradey, Battle, Mogbo, Martin, Hepburn...that's 6 guys end of the rotation, depth or 2-ways. It's not a crazy idea to not have one of them and instead have a C. It's a real easy concept...18 roster spots, fill 2 with actual big C's because Yak WILL miss games. And we WILL have matchups where the opponents size impacts the game. Or do we ignore JV cooking the Raps before getting hurt in the Denver game?

Once it was clear Chomche was not going to be an option, we should have made a move. Given he wasn't playing, we should have drafted one/ grabbed one with a 2-way. We have lacked C depth for years and still lack it to ge FLEXIBLE vs certain matchups.

And again, I use Martin as an example. We grabbed him with a 2nd and he came in when needed and helped us gut out a win. Why can't we go find a C to do the similar thing?

Because the list of non scrub C's is very short compared to guards, wings and forwards. You've seen us go dumpster diving before for Bigs have you not? How did that turn out? If you're around 7 foot tall and don't suck, you're probably already making a lot of money.

How many teams have a 3rd string C that doesn't suck? Maybe a couple?

The way to counter guys like JV is to run them off the floor on the other end, not match up an inferior big against him.

[sidsid]

This was an outlier bad Mamu game which likely would have made this game a more comfortable win. We had him in a few more decision making situations (which he's fine at), but we need to give CMB more of these opportunities. He's got plenty of Barnes in him so let him cook.

Lot of really good process in the middle of the floor. Some smart cutting inside from a lot of guys once everyone realized Barnes was going to find them.

[Tripod]

Sure, but it's also not a pressing need. If we're needing to play a scrub big in the first place, that's already not good for us. Anything a Nick Richards gives you in rebounding and some rim protection is given back up in the various other ways that he sucks. That basically applies to practically all 3rd string C's. Playing the 5 here requires more than what these scrub bigs provide, you need to make reads in this offense and have some flexibility to guard on the perimeter. Anyone actually useful is going to cost more significant assets and likely has a cap number hard to fit in and then you have to ask whether it's worth allocating those kind of resources for a 3rd string C in the first place. I still expect us to do something but I also expect whoever we get to basically never play.

You have this odd belief that the 3rd C HAS to be a scrub or make money.

Ochai, Gradey, Battle, Mogbo, Martin, Hepburn...that's 6 guys end of the rotation, depth or 2-ways. It's not a crazy idea to not have one of them and instead have a C. It's a real easy concept...18 roster spots, fill 2 with actual big C's because Yak WILL miss games. And we WILL have matchups where the opponents size impacts the game. Or do we ignore JV cooking the Raps before getting hurt in the Denver game?

Once it was clear Chomche was not going to be an option, we should have made a move. Given he wasn't playing, we should have drafted one/ grabbed one with a 2-way. We have lacked C depth for years and still lack it to ge FLEXIBLE vs certain matchups.

And again, I use Martin as an example. We grabbed him with a 2nd and he came in when needed and helped us gut out a win. Why can't we go find a C to do the similar thing?

Because the list of non scrub C's is very short compared to guards, wings and forwards. You've seen us go dumpster diving before for Bigs have you not? How did that turn out? If you're around 7 foot tall and don't suck, you're probably already making a lot of money.

How many teams have a 3rd string C that doesn't suck? Maybe a couple?

The way to counter guys like JV is to run them off the floor on the other end, not match up an inferior big against him.

Just drafted 2nd rounders or undrafted guys don't cost big money.

Let's just agree to disagree. You are fine with not even trying, I prefer one less depth guy at SG,SF,PF and 1 more C.

[PushDaRock]

You have this odd belief that the 3rd C HAS to be a scrub or make money.

Ochai, Gradey, Battle, Mogbo, Martin, Hepburn...that's 6 guys end of the rotation, depth or 2-ways. It's not a crazy idea to not have one of them and instead have a C. It's a real easy concept...18 roster spots, fill 2 with actual big C's because Yak WILL miss games. And we WILL have matchups where the opponents size impacts the game. Or do we ignore JV cooking the Raps before getting hurt in the Denver game?

Once it was clear Chomche was not going to be an option, we should have made a move. Given he wasn't playing, we should have drafted one/ grabbed one with a 2-way. We have lacked C depth for years and still lack it to ge FLEXIBLE vs certain matchups.

And again, I use Martin as an example. We grabbed him with a 2nd and he came in when needed and helped us gut out a win. Why can't we go find a C to do the similar thing?

Because the list of non scrub C's is very short compared to guards, wings and forwards. You've seen us go dumpster diving before for Bigs have you not? How did that turn out? If you're around 7 foot tall and don't suck, you're probably already making a lot of money.

How many teams have a 3rd string C that doesn't suck? Maybe a couple?

The way to counter guys like JV is to run them off the floor on the other end, not match up an inferior big against him.

Just drafted 2nd rounders or undrafted guys don't cost big money.

Let's just agree to disagree. You are fine with not even trying, I prefer one less depth guy at SG,SF,PF and 1 more C.

It's not like we have never tried before. Look at the number of C's we went through last season. Like I've said before, it's not easy to find a C that fits Darko's system and the way he wants to play.

Seems like you just want a human victory cigar on the bench that's 7 ft tall more than anything else.

[lolwut]

We don’t see practices so we don’t really know. For all we know, gradey is being showcased for a trade. There are many possibilities. Initially I had hoped for a Gordon Hayward trajectory with Gradey since he’s way more creative than we give him credit for. However, he’s just not strong enough yet and hasn’t developed counters or a handle. He does try defensively though - gotta give him that. His getting blocked on a breakaway dunk last game was an example of why I’m not too interested in what he has to offer.

It isn't a strength issue. His biggest problem is his inability to make shots when there is even the faintest contest. That's a far larger problem. If he were shooting capably from 3, he'd be considerably more tolerable.

He doesn't hit wide open shots consistently enough, and when there is the slightest contest, he gets run off the line and wastes the opportunity.

When someone like Duncan Robinson gets a wide open look, you feel like it's an automatic bucket. That's why you need a defender stuck to him.

When Dick takes the same shot, it feels like a coin toss.

[Tripod]

Because the list of non scrub C's is very short compared to guards, wings and forwards. You've seen us go dumpster diving before for Bigs have you not? How did that turn out? If you're around 7 foot tall and don't suck, you're probably already making a lot of money.

How many teams have a 3rd string C that doesn't suck? Maybe a couple?

The way to counter guys like JV is to run them off the floor on the other end, not match up an inferior big against him.

Just drafted 2nd rounders or undrafted guys don't cost big money.

Let's just agree to disagree. You are fine with not even trying, I prefer one less depth guy at SG,SF,PF and 1 more C.

It's not like we have never tried before. Look at the number of C's we went through last season. Like I've said before, it's not easy to find a C that fits Darko's system and the way he wants to play.

Seems like you just want a human victory cigar on the bench that's 7 ft tall more than anything else.

Or I just want to use 1 of the 18 available roster spots used on a usable depth big C.

Huge ask, apparently.

[PushDaRock]

Just drafted 2nd rounders or undrafted guys don't cost big money.

Let's just agree to disagree. You are fine with not even trying, I prefer one less depth guy at SG,SF,PF and 1 more C.

It's not like we have never tried before. Look at the number of C's we went through last season. Like I've said before, it's not easy to find a C that fits Darko's system and the way he wants to play.

Seems like you just want a human victory cigar on the bench that's 7 ft tall more than anything else.

Or I just want to use 1 of the 18 available roster spots used on a usable depth big C.

Huge ask, apparently.

It is

[tsherkin]

Or I just want to use 1 of the 18 available roster spots used on a usable depth big C.

Huge ask, apparently.

It isn't an easy ask, that's for sure. We've gone through a variety of options, and haven't been able to settle on anything but our undersized guys and Poeltl. That isn't happening because management is useless, but rather because ones worth more than Orlando Robinson or Colin Castleton are very difficult to find.

[Merit]

It's not like we have never tried before. Look at the number of C's we went through last season. Like I've said before, it's not easy to find a C that fits Darko's system and the way he wants to play.

Seems like you just want a human victory cigar on the bench that's 7 ft tall more than anything else.

Or I just want to use 1 of the 18 available roster spots used on a usable depth big C.

Huge ask, apparently.

It is

It really is! That’s why the mamu signing and the emergence of CMB as a small ball C has meant so much to the team.

[Merit]

Sure, but it's also not a pressing need. If we're needing to play a scrub big in the first place, that's already not good for us. Anything a Nick Richards gives you in rebounding and some rim protection is given back up in the various other ways that he sucks. That basically applies to practically all 3rd string C's. Playing the 5 here requires more than what these scrub bigs provide, you need to make reads in this offense and have some flexibility to guard on the perimeter. Anyone actually useful is going to cost more significant assets and likely has a cap number hard to fit in and then you have to ask whether it's worth allocating those kind of resources for a 3rd string C in the first place. I still expect us to do something but I also expect whoever we get to basically never play.

You have this odd belief that the 3rd C HAS to be a scrub or make money.

Ochai, Gradey, Battle, Mogbo, Martin, Hepburn...that's 6 guys end of the rotation, depth or 2-ways. It's not a crazy idea to not have one of them and instead have a C. It's a real easy concept...18 roster spots, fill 2 with actual big C's because Yak WILL miss games. And we WILL have matchups where the opponents size impacts the game. Or do we ignore JV cooking the Raps before getting hurt in the Denver game?

Once it was clear Chomche was not going to be an option, we should have made a move. Given he wasn't playing, we should have drafted one/ grabbed one with a 2-way. We have lacked C depth for years and still lack it to ge FLEXIBLE vs certain matchups.

And again, I use Martin as an example. We grabbed him with a 2nd and he came in when needed and helped us gut out a win. Why can't we go find a C to do the similar thing?

Because the list of non scrub C's is very short compared to guards, wings and forwards. You've seen us go dumpster diving before for Bigs have you not? How did that turn out? If you're around 7 foot tall and don't suck, you're probably already making a lot of money.

How many teams have a 3rd string C that doesn't suck? Maybe a couple?

The way to counter guys like JV is to run them off the floor on the other end, not match up an inferior big against him.

To elaborate further, how is Mo Bamba doing? It’s not like we’re standing pat. We’re at least trying to find a solution.

[Merit]

We don’t see practices so we don’t really know. For all we know, gradey is being showcased for a trade. There are many possibilities. Initially I had hoped for a Gordon Hayward trajectory with Gradey since he’s way more creative than we give him credit for. However, he’s just not strong enough yet and hasn’t developed counters or a handle. He does try defensively though - gotta give him that. His getting blocked on a breakaway dunk last game was an example of why I’m not too interested in what he has to offer.

It isn't a strength issue. His biggest problem is his inability to make shots when there is even the faintest contest. That's a far larger problem. If he were shooting capably from 3, he'd be considerably more tolerable.

He doesn't hit wide open shots consistently enough, and when there is the slightest contest, he gets run off the line and wastes the opportunity.

When someone like Duncan Robinson gets a wide open look, you feel like it's an automatic bucket. That's why you need a defender stuck to him.

When Dick takes the same shot, it feels like a coin toss.

Hey @lolwut - gotta add pritchard to that father tracker. Maybe Jaylen Brown as well.