Eh. I redacted my post because what’s the point also it was off topic, when I was critiquing you for being off topic.
But I guess you were taking the rest of the day to respond and posted after my redaction. Ha! And here I thought you were being the bigger man.
But I’ll pick through and see what’s of substance and germane to the topic.
doclinkin wrote:Any of the moves the team made has an alternative move that would have shored up (other) deficient areas....
That statement is simply & plainly untrue. They seem to think Rui is "one of a kind." The Lakers deal certainly was one of a kind. Neither Jones nor Robinson fits your template. Neither does Clark. Neither does McRae for that matter (he doesn't shoot the 3). In fact, you just cherry pick data that fits your idea.
Robinson is a ballhandler of the drive and dish type. If the concept is: ‘find a simulation of John Wall and surround them with shooters’ then he fits.
McRae also is a ballhandling attacker who lacks great range but gets his points inside the arc.
In the no-hand-check era this sort of player became more useful.
Actually Arenas and Hughes with EFJ’s Wizards were the first to really exploit that rules change. As soon as Jamison began gunning from outside at a rate never seen before, Hughes and Arenas began pegging opponents with fouls.
Here, we have Beal in that outside/inside Arenas role, but didn’t add any other three point shooting guards. That wasn’t a point of emphasis on who this team picked up. Not saying they avoided it. Just saying it wasn’t who they worked to acquire.
You suggest none were available. But if we had traded down we could have landed Tyler Herro and still snatched a rebounding big and more. If that was what we were looking for, there were players available after 9 who would have filled both roles.
You and I would have picked differently than this front office. I surely would have taken the Spurs draft if they offered a trade up. (Plus future picks). I liked Domancic and cited Keldon Johnson as a standout in the ‘productive freshman equals higher upside’ sift of the data.
who the hell are you to critique me?
I’m one of multiple people already in this short thread who is suggesting you derail conversations by negging damn near everybody on any topic whatsoever, as if you have sole authority on all things basketball. Go back and reread yourself.
When's the last time you were right about anything in the draft for example? Wait, I have the answer: never -- not as far as I can recall,
Well that’s because you’re old and your memory is failing.
Hell, I brought up Clarke before you did. You’ve cited my nod of Chandler Parsons who early on had success beyond his draft pick. Folks here know I’ve had far more success with 2nd round and late picks than most, from Marc Gasol to Jared Dudley to Kyle Lowry. Actually the top of the board is where I trust scouts. There’s no track record to analyze. Late picks I do well with. But I’ll draw up a list some point. Generally as good or better than yours I suspect.
I had Mario Chalmers but forget the guy you cited as equivalent. We can play this game if you like. You want me to point people to your Joey Porter posts?
I had Kemba Walker in his draft as my guy, especially on a trade down. I had Trevor Booker ahead of the Craig Brackens pick you remember. He was pretty good value for his pick. Liked both of Orlando’s bigs, Gordon and Vuc.
I’ve generally been in accord with you. We both appreciate rebounding and taking care of the ball. I prefer defensive boards over offense in college. The same way I discount NCAA blocks since they don’t translate as well. I like bigs who get assists and steals. And guards who rebound on defense better than their counterparts. My track record is about as good as anyone on the board or the mocks. Had James Harden but wanted Stef above all. I had Stef Curry as a freshman. Died inside that we drafted anyone else.
Yes I do commonly read about coaching. Plays. Watch YouTube breakdowns. Can coach at a high school level. Love reading about it and designing plays. Had a thread on here years back drawing up plays and discussing packages for the players we did have.
I saw what Calipari was doing that inflated the numbers of his Bigs in the dribble drive motion offense where he would play four out then drag his low post player to the weak side to clear out space for ball handlers. When the opposing big then tried to cut off the interior attack Joey Porter among others would crash back door and get free easy points and offensive putbacks.
I liked EFJ’s dribble handoff bastardization of the Pete Carril Princeton offense since it reduced turnovers for our personnel group. And saw how it was failing because he lacked a true Pivot in the center. MORE so than the ranged 5 he thought he wanted. What he needed was passing and a defensive captain. Needed the Bill Russell defending and distributing Big who could be the hub of the wheel around which the action revolves and whose Celtics were the inspiration for the Princeton motion game in the first place. (But sure, who doesn’t need Russ). Still both Etan Thomas and Brendan Haywood had marble hands and could not pass or distribute to save their lives. And defensively they weren’t mobile.
Which is why seeing both of the Gasol brothers play as distributing Bigs in Spanish play with La Bomba made me think Marc would play well for EFJ (his birthday brother if you were ever here to read the zodiac thread). If the big Spaniard could lose a little weight to keep up with the running gunning Gil and Larry. He’d have fit perfectly. Though I was happy with Dom MaGuire who we picked before Gasol. Figured he’d be the Andre Iguodala type that I wished we picked (rebounder, passer, shotblocker) instead of trading the pick for Jamison. Dom was okay for a late pick. Gasol would’ve been better.
But yes. It’s fascinating to me to envision how to put into action what players do well. Players aren’t numbers. Synergy is key. It’s beautiful. Hell I’m no pro. But I’m relatively bright with a good visual imagination. I can see gaps and holes and have insight. It’s worth thinking about.
You saw me talking about rebounding and 2FG% as a counter to Stef and Harden before Kawhi did exactly that in the playoffs.
I have no problem at all with your idea that we're signing guys who can spread the floor & shoot the 3. Even though it doesn't apply to McRae, Phillip, Jones, Bonga, or even to Rui in any special way (there were a lot more proficient 3-point shooters available in the draft), or to Smith or Brown. & even though it's not clear that it even applies to Wagner (what was his 3pt. % last year?). It is true of Bertans; that's his skill.
Bigs who shoot the three and play outside. FIBA style.
Ballhandlers who drive and dish or score inside. (Ditto FIBA style actually, especially in Barcelona and Croatia who both generally have skilled Bigs).
I know I’m long winded and maybe not worth reading. But if you missed that point then you’re just skimming to find points you disagree with and chances to be disagreeable.
Here is my key point, or question;
Given what a healthy John Wall does well and what he does poorly, if you had a mandate from the owner to design a team around him, what sort of team would you build?
What I perceive is that the team is recruiting bigs who can stay out of the way of attacking guards. Leaving room for ballhandling attackers to drive inside and kick to the open man.
Then they are adding ballhandlers who can handle some of the John Wall duties.
Do I think it’s a finished product? No.
Do I think it’s the perfect plan? No.
Do they need upgrades or development all over to make it work? Yes.
But I do think it’s a plan.
John is elite at creating shots for outside shooters. Better than anyone since Steve Nash. Why not give him archers to command?
Does that mean I think Bertans and Wagner and Admiral and Miles are our championship pieces? Nope. It just says something to me that the centers and forwards they sought out are face-up bigs who can play outside the arc.
Rui and Bryant included. Though they can play inside as well.
And I do think the FO deliberately sought out Wagner in that deal. They liked him in Europe. They liked him in college. Hell _you_ liked him in college. For that reason. Efficient scoring. Outside shooting. The gamble is that he can rebuild his confidence and regain that touch. They loved him in the draft. But it wasn’t for his rebounding. What’d they love?
Given his FIBA experience, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had their eye on fellow German Bonga too. They just didn’t say as much about him in the breakdown of the deal. Wagner they said they’d wanted a long time.
Them. Not me. The point is trying to guess what they’re doing. And what they ought to do if so. My opinions on what works are different.
You really have it in you to be a nasty a$$hole, don't you?
Yes I do. Hell you’ve got the mellow me. I’ve moved on past the old flame wars.
But check yourself a second. You pissed on the premise of the thread. Made snide contemptuous and condescending remarks on people who were honestly trying to answer the question. And then clambered up on your high horse.
Feel free to read the Terms of Service of the site, but effectively you were trolling. Derailing the conversation to provoke argument, and then patting yourself on the back for doing so. It’s a habit of yours. I don’t think you really know you’re doing it. You think condescendion is humor. This board is super relaxed about that sort of thing, picking fights and being obnoxious, and I love it that way. But sometimes it’s tiresome to read it again when it adds nothing new to the conversation.
Which is why I redacted my own reaction before you responded. It added nothing on topic. But oh well.
I give you hell in part because I do like you. I told you about these boards since I knew you’d respect the emphasis on analysis and find some people who could occasionally put you in your place statistically. And even more rarely, rhetorically.
But when you crash in with the Payitforward act that everybody but you is an idiot, in my thread, then yeah, this dog barks back and bites. And I invite you to Takeitback elsewhere. Bring some content beyond critiquing other peoples ideas.
At least in the Ernie Goodbye thread you risked a new idea, even if it was gossipy gloating about the guy in our rear view mirror that we finally dropped by the roadside to let someone else drive.
Here? Ok everyone else is wrong. Except you You wish it weren’t so. But there’s no evidence that it isn’t. And oh how you will laugh when you can look back.
I mean, nice. But it adds nothing to the conversation.
I mean... you don't post for months, & when you show up I respond in a celebratory way -- I make a point of it. But, that's what you have to say to me?
If I missed you doing that I appreciate it. I do get busy on life and other adventures. But like the team and miss you guys. Even these little dust ups. They keep things lively.
God you can be a dick....
I mean. Amen. Can’t argue with you there.