RealGM

We drafted Landry in the same year as Green, then seemingly gave him away. Which player do you think is better, and who would help us more?

I asked this in the player comparisons forum but I wanted to see what you all think.

Green is now better and will likely always be better. Landry wnt ever be more than a "hustle guy" - which are great but Green will be/is better. regardless of "fit"

Remember even though everyone is saying how bad a fit green is at PF - we are still winning alot of games!

Carl Landry is much better than Jeff Green as a PF that does everything you want your PF to do. He's efficient (60%+ TS), makes free throws (higher FT% than Green), rebounds decently, and never takes a possession off. Jeff Green has a better handle and can shoot the three pointer, but that's about all he does better than Landry, and I'd say we're sorely in need of Landry's skills more than Green's.

Landry doesn't take threes but he's a higher percentage mid range shooter than Green as well. Also, he boxes out on defensive rebounds and hustles on every play. Green is a great hustle guy too, of course, but there are times where he gets pushed out of a play (especially near the basket) and gives up on it.

I'd trade Green for Landry straight up in a second.. it'd REALLY balance out our roster.

I agree with slick BUT I have to say Green gets underrated in his defense especially closeouts. He is probably our best closeout defender. I ALWAYS see green with a outstretch arm contesting a shot. That is valuable even though its a small thing. Landry doesn't have Greens versatility or defensive closeout ability.

This season:
Jeff Green - 14.5 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.9 bpg, .447 fg%, .325 3p%, in 37 mpg
Carl Landry - 16.4 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 0.8 apg, 0.8 bpg, .544 fg%, in 28 mpg

Clangus wrote:Green is now better and will likely always be better. Landry wnt ever be more than a "hustle guy" - which are great but Green will be/is better. regardless of "fit"

Remember even though everyone is saying how bad a fit green is at PF - we are still winning alot of games!

I'm curious as to your reasoning behind Green's supposed present and future superiority.

landry for green straight up would do wonders for OKC

i think that would put us in hawks territory in terms of contention

Jimmy76 wrote:landry for green straight up would do wonders for OKC

i think that would put us in hawks territory in terms of contention

I think OKC is a better team already than the Hawks.

slick_watts wrote:

Jimmy76 wrote:landry for green straight up would do wonders for OKC

i think that would put us in hawks territory in terms of contention

I think OKC is a better team already than the Hawks.

their record is slightly better but you're right i had a skewed perception because of the weaker east

Im just saying Landry replacing green makes us darkhorse contenders at the least and definitely improves the team

mcmokken wrote:This season:
Jeff Green - 14.5 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.9 bpg, .447 fg%, .325 3p%, in 37 mpg
Carl Landry - 16.4 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 0.8 apg, 0.8 bpg, .544 fg%, in 28 mpg

Clangus wrote:Green is now better and will likely always be better. Landry wnt ever be more than a "hustle guy" - which are great but Green will be/is better. regardless of "fit"

Remember even though everyone is saying how bad a fit green is at PF - we are still winning alot of games!

I'm curious as to your reasoning behind Green's supposed present and future superiority.

Landry with significant minutes (kings) - (because even though its a small sample size its not fair to have a comparison when the minutes are so different - good at low minutes doesn't translate exactly when more minutes are added) is only averaging 7 boards a game. that is not a good number for a PF playing 37 mins, Greens numbers are lower but he brings outside shooting to the table Landry is not a "stretch 4" so should be expected to board better.Green is better in the clutch. Green is a better passer IMO and more versatile. No way we could get away with Landry playing the 3 (on either side of the ball).


Landry is a worse shotblocker. He's just as undersized as Green for a PF, but doesn't have the "Stretch" ability or the quickness of Green. He is also 3 years older. More foul prone too.

So the things we don't like about Green (rebounding and blocks) Landry isn't much better at. There is no upgrade. The effects would is that there is less room for penetration for Westbrook and KD because Landry plays offensively closer to the basket and less versatility in our rotation.

Its just my opinion though.

Clangus wrote:Landry with significant minutes (kings) - (because even though its a small sample size its not fair to have a comparison when the minutes are so different - good at low minutes doesn't translate exactly when more minutes are added) is only averaging 7 boards a game. that is not a good number for a PF playing 37 mins, Greens numbers are lower but he brings outside shooting to the table Landry is not a "stretch 4" so should be expected to board better.Green is better in the clutch. Green is a better passer IMO and more versatile. No way we could get away with Landry playing the 3 (on either side of the ball).

Are you really using a nine game, 337 minute sample of a player trying to fit in a new team as the basis for this comparison? What exactly is wrong with the ~4000 minutes he played for the Houston Rockets? Are you saying this 337 minute sample is more representative of Carl Landry's ability than the 4000 minutes he played before?

Carl Landry's career rebound % is 13.1%. Jeff Green is at 9.7%. Landry's around the same rebounder as Nene, David West, Josh Smith, LaMarcus Aldridge, etc. Jeff Green is about the same as Andrea Bargnani.

As far as 'stretch four' goes. Define 'stretch'. Carl Landry is a vastly superior shooter than Jeff Green anywhere inside 23 feet. Much better. Jeff Green shoots threes, but they're not work much if he continues to shoot 32%. If he gets back to 35%+ then I'd call that a significant difference between the two.

They are similar shot blockers (again, if you look at their careers and not less than 1/10 of Landry's).

Jeff Green is more versatile, sure. He can guard SF's.. but.. uhh.. he can't really guard PF's. The bulk of our opponent's scoring is done from the PF position, Jeff puts in the effort but routinely gets out muscled and out classed on the block. Landry doesn't have that problem whatsoever.

Clangus wrote:He's just as undersized as Green for a PF, but doesn't have the "Stretch" ability or the quickness of Green. He is also 3 years older. More foul prone too.

Carl Landry is as undersized as Jeff Green but makes up for it with considerably more strength, box out technique, and hustle on the block. Green has characteristics of a perimeter player, he gets tossed out of plays, prefers guarding on the perimeter, is forced to front strong post players.. Landry does not have these limitations.

Regarding Green's versatility.. we have a SF already who plays 40 minutes a game. Is Green's 8 minutes of SF action really a compelling reason to choose him over Landry?

Clangus wrote:So the things we don't like about Green (rebounding and blocks) Landry isn't much better at. There is no upgrade. The effects would is that there is less room for penetration for Westbrook and KD because Landry plays offensively closer to the basket and less versatility in our rotation.

I'm not sure how this is an advantage for Jeff Green. Green's eFG% on three pointers is 48.6% which is a bit low. Jeff Green shoots about 32% from 10-23 feet, so he has no reliable mid range game (yet takes a lot of mid range shots). Carl Landry shoots about 42% from 10-23 feet, including 41% from 16-23 feet, almost 10% better shooter than Jeff Green from mid range distances. Landry also gets to the free throw line far more than Green and is a much better free throw shooter. Overall, Landry's a significantly more efficient player offensively. If Jeff Green was shooting close to 40% from three point range like a Troy Murphy, then yeah, that would offset the difference a bit. But 32% shooting from deep is nothing to write home about, and isn't enough to overcome Landry's huge advantage over Green everywhere else on the offensive end..

Sorry for the long post.. I'm still upset we let Landry slip away.

Landry is better on offense, but is worse on defense. Green is great at contesting shots on the perimeter, and is more unselfish with the ball. Landry would get exposed in our defensive system IMO. he doesn't have near the quickness or athleticism to go out on the perimeter and rotate and contest shots like Green which is a HUGE part of our Defense.

slick_watts wrote:

Clangus wrote:Landry with significant minutes (kings) - (because even though its a small sample size its not fair to have a comparison when the minutes are so different - good at low minutes doesn't translate exactly when more minutes are added) is only averaging 7 boards a game. that is not a good number for a PF playing 37 mins, Greens numbers are lower but he brings outside shooting to the table Landry is not a "stretch 4" so should be expected to board better.Green is better in the clutch. Green is a better passer IMO and more versatile. No way we could get away with Landry playing the 3 (on either side of the ball).

Are you really using a nine game, 337 minute sample of a player trying to fit in a new team as the basis for this comparison? What exactly is wrong with the ~4000 minutes he played for the Houston Rockets? Are you saying this 337 minute sample is more representative of Carl Landry's ability than the 4000 minutes he played before?

YES I AM- did you not read my post. A hustle played producing in 28 mins is not the same as bering the starter and playing 37 minutes.

slick_watts wrote:Carl Landry's career rebound % is 13.1%. Jeff Green is at 9.7%. Landry's around the same rebounder as Nene, David West, Josh Smith, LaMarcus Aldridge, etc. Jeff Green is about the same as Andrea Bargnani.

Yes lets just find all the hustle players and talk about what they COULD do in more minutes. Its easier to average more boards per minute, %of etc WHEN YOU PLAY AROUND 28mins.
Why is this such a hard thing for RealGm to understand. If you have 28mins to hustle your ass off you can put up better numbers as your energy levels dont need to be sustained for as long. PLUS while coaches mention the hustle guys when drawing up game plans, they FOCUS on teh guys that are playing the most minutes.

slick_watts wrote:As far as 'stretch four' goes. Define 'stretch'. Carl Landry is a vastly superior shooter than Jeff Green anywhere inside 23 feet. Much better. Jeff Green shoots threes, but they're not work much if he continues to shoot 32%. If he gets back to 35%+ then I'd call that a significant difference between the two.

I define it as the ability to hit the three OR DRIVE AROUND A PLAYER CLOSING OUT ON YOU. Landry DOESN"T have the handling ability to do this.

slick_watts wrote:They are similar shot blockers (again, if you look at their careers and not less than 1/10 of Landry's).

So Ibaka is an equivalent shot blocker to Dwight? No! Because his blocks com in 18ish HUSTLE MINUTES
See above

slick_watts wrote:Jeff Green is more versatile, sure. He can guard SF's.. but.. uhh.. he can't really guard PF's. The bulk of our opponent's scoring is done from the PF position, Jeff puts in the effort but routinely gets out muscled and out classed on the block. Landry doesn't have that problem whatsoever.

Until he has to guard a quick PF, or one with a decent Handle, or one with Range on his Jumper. Landry is good at guarding bangers. Green is good at guarding the faster, perimeter orientated guys.
Each to thier own

Clangus wrote:He's just as undersized as Green for a PF, but doesn't have the "Stretch" ability or the quickness of Green. He is also 3 years older. More foul prone too.

slick_watts wrote:Carl Landry is as undersized as Jeff Green but makes up for it with considerably more strength, box out technique, and hustle on the block. Green has characteristics of a perimeter player, he gets tossed out of plays, prefers guarding on the perimeter, is forced to front strong post players.. Landry does not have these limitations.

See above response

slick_watts wrote:Regarding Green's versatility.. we have a SF already who plays 40 minutes a game. Is Green's 8 minutes of SF action really a compelling reason to choose him over Landry?

It makes a difference. Its not the only reason, but just because its "only 8 mins" doesn't mean you get to discount that versatility. Games can be won and lost in 8 minutes of the second rotation slick

Clangus wrote:So the things we don't like about Green (rebounding and blocks) Landry isn't much better at. There is no upgrade. The effects would is that there is less room for penetration for Westbrook and KD because Landry plays offensively closer to the basket and less versatility in our rotation.

slick_watts wrote:I'm not sure how this is an advantage for Jeff Green. Green's eFG% on three pointers is 48.6% which is a bit low. Jeff Green shoots about 32% from 10-23 feet, so he has no reliable mid range game (yet takes a lot of mid range shots). Carl Landry shoots about 42% from 10-23 feet, including 41% from 16-23 feet, almost 10% better shooter than Jeff Green from mid range distances. Landry also gets to the free throw line far more than Green and is a much better free throw shooter. Overall, Landry's a significantly more efficient player offensively. If Jeff Green was shooting close to 40% from three point range like a Troy Murphy, then yeah, that would offset the difference a bit. But 32% shooting from deep is nothing to write home about, and isn't enough to overcome Landry's huge advantage over Green everywhere else on the offensive end..

Sorry for the long post.. I'm still upset we let Landry slip away.

The percentages definatley favor Landry. however we both know that of the Landry shoots from 10-23 feet the majority would be taken from closer to the 10 feet mark than the 23 feet mark, and Green's attempts would likely be the other way around.

You love Landry Slick and that's fine. You also Love David Lee. I don't like either in our system.

That's why places like this exist.

I think Landry does fit the system well, if we talk about the starting lineup as a group but I'm really coming around to the intangables that Green brings that's winning us games. Green can not show up on offense (which happens a bit, especially since we don't run any plays for him at all) and still influence the game.

He often plays on the other teams best players, plays from the 3 to the 5 and gives us the versatility that can often be the game breaker. How many times this year have we gone to a 3 guard backcourt with Durant and Green at 4 and 5 that has broken open the game. He plays the 3 when Durant sits, and his athletic and defensive ability allows us to cover up the flaws of our centre's (Krstics lack of movement/ shot blocking, Ibaka's lack of offense/ boxing out). More recently i've noticed us running plays where Krstic and Green flare to a corner on a Westbrook/Durant drive for the open jumpshot, utilising the stretch bigs we have. I really think that at the moment he's influencing the structure greatly, and as the coaching staff tune the offense and he refines his game, his stats will come up.

As a 'fit' i think we would be better off with Landry, but i think as a team we'd produce more wins with Green, and i'd say the way he's been playing lately he's a better player. Atleast in the wins column. And this is from a guy who a third of the way through the year had given up on Green, now i could talk about how much i think he means for this team til the cows come home.

anyone watching the hornets game will see why OKC wont win rings with Green at PF

Jimmy76 wrote:anyone watching the hornets game will see why OKC wont win rings with Green at PF

Purely Anicdotal.

Anyone who watched the Hawks games would have seen why can can win with Green.

These are two of my favorite players, so I have a tough time choosing one over the other. They're both good, and I personally think they do a lot more than they get credit for.

seattlefan35... what made you change your mind about Green this season? His production doesn't seem to have picked up drastically by any means... so I was just curious?

I think Carl Landry is really being sold short in this thread. He's a PF that can guard almost any PF in the league effectively, scores efficiently, rebounds, hustles.. what more is there to the position?

Jeff Green gets abused by the premier PF's in the NBA. David West, Josh Smith, LMA, Carlos Boozer, Dirk, Amar'e, Gasol, they all lick their chops when they see Jeff Green guarding them. All have had big games against us. Yes, Jeff has made some big plays, and even some big defensive plays against those guys. That doesn't negate the fact that we get crushed at the PF position by the better teams - both on the offensive end and on the boards.

Clutch play is also overrated a bit. Jeff has made some great plays and that's excellent, but those things tend to even out and they color our perception of things. For every shot that's made in the clutch we remember it 10x more than the times that player has failed. Green is such an inefficient offensive player, and so inconsistent, we fail to notice the times where he's disappeared from the game (frequent), gave up offensive rebounds on key possessions (Houston games, LAL game, etc).

There is solid statistical evidence that Jeff Green is bad for this team in his current role as a ~38MPG starter. We do better with him off the court. He's just not very productive at anything. He has lots of skill, and contibutes to our winning ways doing some of the 'little things' but can we win championships with that type of player starting at PF - where every other team in the West features a dominant force?

Anyway this is sort of moving off topic and everyone here knows my opinion of Jeff Green anyway. Unless we acquire that elusive, game changing center, I would feel more comfortable with a traditional option such as Carl Landry.

Im kinda bored by all these Green-bashings. Consider that he is an undersized and underweight PF, he does a pretty darn good job for a very good Thunder team.
Would there be better fits for the starting PF spot? Of course.
But so would there be for PG, C, etc.
He's just doing fine, leave him alone. I would never trade him, as long as the Thunder are improving and have such a good work ethic.
The Thunder are awesome, I love them and J-Green is a cornerstone of that team no matter what.

BIG EDDIE wrote:Im kinda bored by all these Green-bashings. Consider that he is an undersized and underweight PF, he does a pretty darn good job for a very good Thunder team.

I think he does a good job as well. However, he is listed as being of similar size to players such as Landry and David West who bring other things to the PF spot for their teams and are considered successful, so I think that the comparison is warranted. Recognizing and being critical of Green's shortcomings as a PF compared to other PFs is fair, and I think "bashing" is too strong a word as most of us on this board appreciate what Green does contribute, yet are also aware of what he doesn't. I see most of the true Green bashing on the trades board where he is constantly underrated by fans of other teams.

BIG EDDIE wrote:Would there be better fits for the starting PF spot? Of course.
But so would there be for PG, C, etc.

Yeah, pretty much for every spot except SF. I would say the C spot gets talked about most for OKC. PF comes second. This makes perfect sense when you are talking about a team in need of more shot-blocking and rebounding.

BIG EDDIE wrote:He's just doing fine, leave him alone. I would never trade him, as long as the Thunder are improving and have such a good work ethic.

I think he is doing fine too, but he is far from untouchable to me if the opportunity to upgrade the team for now and the future was available through a trade. I hope Presti feels the same way, despite him seeming to be really close with some of his players. If/Once Green signs an extension, depending on how he is perceived to be overpaid/underpaid, I think it will be really interesting to see what people have to say about him then.