SG Position / Donovan Coaching Style

[spearsy23]

So what you mean by "the highest ceiling this guy has, really is similar to Westbrook and Harden" is "this guy may attempt to get to the rim like Westbrook and Harden do. He won't do it as much or as well and won't finish when he gets there, but he'll try it just as much."?

Do you need me to start typing what you actually mean? I'd say you're having a significant problem getting your point across.

I cant believe imd oing this, but ive grown tired of your BS.

March 2015-

I take little issue with his second season.
Its not unexpected to see young players be inconsistent, the best of them have been through it. He still made acceptable and impressive improvements when we saw him with the Cavs, until that team was wrecked.

Either way we've all had this conversation before and since he has seemed to settle down in a consistent role, he seems to be doing exactly what we needed him to do and exactly what gave us an advantage with Harden.

viewtopic.php?f=334&t=1378793

Funny, seems you understood was said then. Id also like to point out "We've all had this conversation before" and that was in March.

July 2015 -

Did i once compare him to James Harden? No. I compared the role he would take to the a similar role as Harden on OKC. If you cant distinguish a difference, then dont talk basketball.... go to the Barbie forum and talk about Barbie dolls.... something you should be able to grasp the complexities of.

viewtopic.php?f=334&t=1382944&start=1280#start_here

And on and on and on we go and even if you want to suggest i misspoke, in every one of these conversations and threads you want to highlight, i expanded on what was said.
But because you cant be bothered to be honest we end up with this marry-go-round of you making false claims.

That is as much effort as im willing to put into this conversation yet again. As i said to you (and then you agree'd) five... FIVE MONTHS AGO, "We've had this conversation before".

None of that is "clarification." It's backtracking and moving goalposts to save face. You even quoted yourself lying

Did i once compare him to James Harden? No.

the ceiling this guy has really is similar to Westbrook and Harden

will most likely give us a Harden back

And the first quote had literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, and is simply another shifting of goalposts made months after your original dead wrong comparisons.

[Bravenewworld]

None of that is "clarification." It's backtracking and moving goalposts to save face. You even quoted yourself lying

Is that right?
So.....

will most likely give us a Harden back

That is not perfectly in line with speaking of roles on a team?
Is that saying "Harden back" or "A Harden" as in, "A Role"? Seems pretty obvious, even when you leave out the entire conversation it seems **** obvious.
If i was to say "Roberson gives us A Thabo back", im clearly referencing the role Thabo played and what provided for the team. Which was mostly high defense.... which was his role... just as Harden's role was a third driver and Waiters, has the skill set and potential to take that role.

the ceiling this guy has really is similar to Westbrook and Harden

That is again, not perfectly in line with speaking of role on a team?
Similar to westbrook and harden as a role on a team, as an effective **** driver you ****.

Why are you not posting the entire quote or the sentences before and after? Is it maybe because when you do, its very clear to see im trying to find a valid reference for potential specific traits and role on a team?

Waiters potential is scary. The highest ceiling this guy has, really is similar to Westbrook and Harden. Even if he does not get a jump shot down (which im sure he will), he could have a very similar driving mentality. But he's also very strong, so i guess maybe more like a SG Ron Artest.

Did i once compare him to James Harden? No.

Again, explaining i was speaking of roles on a **** team.

And the first quote had literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, and is simply another shifting of goalposts made months after your original dead wrong comparisons.

Really? Go back and read it.

Stop your bull.
Even if, EVEN IF, we pretend that what i said was not perfectly in line with exactly what ive been telling you, YOU'VE BEEN EXPLAINED THIS AND TOLD THIS AFTERWARD. So what the **** does it matter? If you feel i **** misspoke, so what? You've had it explained to you over and over and over since then, so **** off and stop your bull lying.

[bondom34]

And we go back to rationalizing and creating exceptions.

I've said that the list was largely though not entirely made up of bad players (it was).

50/50 is not "largely", its a flip of a coin.

I said Dion has terrible selection and is a poor shooter who's shown little to no improvement (he is and has not).

What younger player does not? Huh?
Westbrook made terrible choices for the first five years of his career, didnt shoot great percentages either, especially when we took away his dunks and lay ups.
What youve said with Waiters is exactly what Skip said about Westbrook. And im sure, you called Skip an idiot for dismissing the fact that you knew he would develop and Skips bull was reliant on Westbrook never, ever developing for some stupid reason.

Harden... we would have won a title if he had been able to fix what? 20% of his poor shot selection in the finals?

Again, what **** player can you not apply this to for the first few years of their career?

You've used comparisons to James Harden and Westbrook and then told people you didn't mean them literally, you meant them in some figurative way that only you can comprehend.

Do you know what "literally" means?
Because, when i said "WAITERS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PLAY THE SAME ROLE AS HARDEN ON THE TEAM", i was being literal. There was no secret message or ambiguity here.
You're simply not understanding that "ROLE" is not suggesting he will develop into Harden.
It is saying, on the goddamn team, he will be able to fill that role. Which again, also in depth in every **** original post i made or a direct response to, was the focus on his ability to drive and how OKC having three guards who could drive that collapsed defenses, is what gave us our advantage.
The issue seems to be, as youve demonstrated earlier on, you dont pay attention to specific words used.

To top it all off, when questioned you've defaulted to the notion that you can see these things that noone else can and are better equipped to view and see talent than anyone else here is.

If your entire premise is based on the nit picking of one or two or even three or four stats, again, specifically advanced stats, yes i will dismiss this and proclaim that you have no idea how to evaluate talent.

We've all been here for this, and you're the only one rehashing this. And you keep bringing up the list of guys when you know very well it was a bunch of bad NBA players and is at this point completely irrelevant.

We very clearly have very different definitions of what a "bad player" is.
Sorry, but im not dumb enough to call a player who played 12 years, spent the majority in contention, a "bad player", even if they are a secondary player. Apparently you will though.

1. It wasn't nearly 50/50. About 90/10, and that may be generous.
2. Plenty, for the example you gave, Westbrook actually shot MORE, but he also improved on his efficiency. Harden the same. Dion just shoots more without actually scoring more.
3. The comparisons, in any form, were and are ridiculous. If I say that Kanter can be our Shaq, because both are tall and score, that's equally ridiculous. It was a terrible comp.
4. You're increasing the number of stats . Yes, I can pick Dion on one or 25 stats, there's a tipping point where I say "Huh, its not just one or 2 stats that say he's not doing well, its really a vast majority." Through that I come to a conclusion that since there's more bad than good, that he's a bad player, not a good one. That's thinking through a problem.
5. I have no idea where Dion played in "contention" for the 12 years of his career. High School? So did most NBA guys, there are a ton of players who play in HS, but a select few make the NBA, a team with any NBA talent will be very good by default. A stint in Syracuse? Cool. A terrible Cavs team? Cool. So he's really had a few years in the league on awful teams where he could jack shots all day and never made anything of it.

But again, we're all vastly inferior to you in your knowledge here, I don't want to bother your mind with actual thought. And for the last time, the list thing is just incredible if you think that it was made up of mostly good players.

[spearsy23]

None of that is "clarification." It's backtracking and moving goalposts to save face. You even quoted yourself lying

Is that right?
So.....

will most likely give us a Harden back

That is not perfectly in line with speaking of roles on a team?
Is that saying "Harden back" or "A Harden" as in, "A Role"? Seems pretty obvious, even when you leave out the entire conversation it seems **** obvious.
If i was to say "Roberson gives us A Thabo back", im clearly referencing the role Thabo played and what provided for the team. Which was mostly high defense.... which was his role... just as Harden's role was a third driver and Waiters, has the skill set and potential to take that role.

the ceiling this guy has really is similar to Westbrook and Harden

That is again, not perfectly in line with speaking of role on a team?
Similar to westbrook and harden as a role on a team, as an effective **** driver you ****.

Why are you not posting the entire quote or the sentences before and after? Is it maybe because when you do, its very clear to see im trying to find a valid reference for potential specific traits and role on a team?

Waiters potential is scary. The highest ceiling this guy has, really is similar to Westbrook and Harden. Even if he does not get a jump shot down (which im sure he will), he could have a very similar driving mentality. But he's also very strong, so i guess maybe more like a SG Ron Artest.

Did i once compare him to James Harden? No.

Again, explaining i was speaking of roles on a **** team.

And the first quote had literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, and is simply another shifting of goalposts made months after your original dead wrong comparisons.

Really? Go back and read it.

Stop your bull.
Even if, EVEN IF, we pretend that what i said was not perfectly in line with exactly what ive been telling you, YOU'VE BEEN EXPLAINED THIS AND TOLD THIS AFTERWARD. So what the **** does it matter? If you feel i **** misspoke, so what? You've had it explained to you over and over and over since then, so **** off and stop your bull lying.

So what you're saying is that you DO need me to type your posts, because you clearly don't actually know how to say what you mean. If you say his ceiling is Westbrook or Harden that means he can be as good as those guys, it doesn't mean he can play a similar role (which, btw, he can't. He isn't an ultra efficient sixth man, superstar PG/SG or top 10 player in the league, and he never will be). And no, the second quote has zero to do with your insane comparisons or Dion d*ck riding.

[spearsy23]

Oh, and Dion is not a secondary player. I'm not even sure you could call him a tertiary player.

[Marcus50]

Only hope for Waiters is that yet another new coach can find something that all the previous coaches have not been able to do. We will have to live with high hopes and low expectations

See, this is the mentality i find ultra-silly.
And i do hate putting it in these terms, but when i hear this ****, i cant help but wonder if that person has been involved with the sport or even just watched at any kind of length. Because when you do, you see that this concept of trying to determine who develops and who does not and its mostly based on things most young players tend to do, is destroyed over and over and over. Its almost as if people take the exception and try to make it the rule. Then when that player does not live up to the exception, they are dismissed.... its ridiculous and no coach or gm would ever follow this idiotic process.

I think what is worse is how these odd stats are used in an attempt to prove that a player will not develop, which is as stupid as it gets as when nit picking stats in this manner, we can dismiss the potential development for any player.... including Lebron or Wade or Kobe or whoever.
The most disturbing part of this Waiters conversation, specifically, is the complete ignoring of his first two years in the NBA. Its often dismissed with "bad percentages" or whatever, but practically every single player who has ever played professional basketball faces those problems for the first few years and sometimes even longer. This is why GMs are not dumb enough to give up on players in their rookie contract or even right after. And if we followed some of these nonsense standards and odd criticisms placed on Waiters and applied them across the league, we would have never seen players like Billups or Kidd or Richardson, etc.

BTW, it seems to me that Mike Brown had it down.

Dion is now a 4th year player with ingrained bad habits that cost him on both ends of the court. He has not shown any significant progress in shot selection nor is he particularly efficient at setting up the players around him and his defense is mediocre. Dion will get plenty of opportunity this year but it will not nor should be as a starting SG. His defense is too suspect and his shot selection is crap. Can he get better, sure and he may well be a very good player some day but there are just those players that take more time than others and championship contending teams are a hard place to learn your craft because everyone expects miracles.

[perkinfor3]

I see these same two dudes turn any topic into a dion waiters discussion which eats up 5+ pages hahaha

[spearsy23]

I see these same two dudes turn any topic into a dion waiters discussion which eats up 5+ pages hahaha

there are at least three of us, maybe even 4. We don't have much else to argue about though, we're all pretty much in agreement that:
Adams is better than Kanter
Augustin is the backup pg AT LEAST through the all-star break
There are no real upgrades at the SG position that we can reasonably obtain
McGary should get a shot at the backup PF spot (though I'm still in favor of Collison and him splitting it)
Health is really the only component we've been missing

What else do we really have to argue about? I guess the jerseys and the logo redesign. Okay guys, I'm in favor of keeping everything the same just like always!

[perkinfor3]

I noticed Bravenewworld and bondom34 going at it for pages in the SG/Donovan thread as well.