ImageImage

Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread

Moderators: BigSlam, JDR720, fatlever, yosemiteben, Diop

W_HAMILTON
RealGM
Posts: 15,257
And1: 12,030
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
 

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#281 » by W_HAMILTON » Tue Apr 2, 2019 5:43 pm

Splitta wrote:Really do not believe that any coach could win with this team as currently constructed. Next year 3 of the bad contracts (Marv, Biz, and Mkg) will be expiring. Maybe one or two of them can be traded at the trade deadline but hopefully for not another bad contract. This will give us about 45 million in cap space and the rebuild can start. CZ is probably usable but Batum should be parked or traded for someone like Parsons. l have mixed emotions on whether to resign Kemba if he is even willing. It would have to be for less than the max IMO. I think Mitch can fix this situation if given the time and MJ is patient. Unfortunately there will be no quick fix and Mitch knows that.


Goddammit, I was hoping Marvin was an expiring this year. I hope to god we find someone that can start in his place next year. I can't take another year of what we've been forced to endure with him starting this year, and next year he'll just be another year older...ugh.
Howard Mass wrote:You do not have the right to not be offended. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean that it breaks the board rules.
W_HAMILTON
RealGM
Posts: 15,257
And1: 12,030
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
 

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#282 » by W_HAMILTON » Tue Apr 2, 2019 5:46 pm

I don't know if Zeller and MKG have regressed so much; rather, I think the bigger problem is that their roles have been messed around with, albeit sometimes admittedly due to their repeated injuries.
Howard Mass wrote:You do not have the right to not be offended. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean that it breaks the board rules.
User avatar
Eoghan
RealGM
Posts: 11,310
And1: 3,273
Joined: May 20, 2009
         

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#283 » by Eoghan » Tue Apr 2, 2019 5:49 pm

Even if Clifford did get this team to the playoffs somehow, they'd get smoked in the 1st round per usual. Kemba's knees probably would've exploded 2 months ago also.
DY_nasty
Head Coach
Posts: 6,674
And1: 2,466
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#284 » by DY_nasty » Tue Apr 2, 2019 6:36 pm

I mentioned it last year, but like him or not - Dwight was HUGE for this team on the boards. He won games for us and kept us in games that we had no right being in. Things didn't work out for whatever reason, but his impact being gone is not some net positive.

Our interior is just not functional and if you're missing solid point guard play or a legitimate interior, you can't expect to win in this league. Entering a season being deficient in either is how teams guarantee their tank. Doing so while having playoff aspirations is absolutely foolish imo. We over-performed if anything and I'm sticking to it.
Vanderbilt_Grad
Analyst
Posts: 3,535
And1: 1,293
Joined: Sep 22, 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#285 » by Vanderbilt_Grad » Tue Apr 2, 2019 10:36 pm

DY_nasty wrote:I mentioned it last year, but like him or not - Dwight was HUGE for this team on the boards. He won games for us and kept us in games that we had no right being in. Things didn't work out for whatever reason, but his impact being gone is not some net positive.

Our interior is just not functional and if you're missing solid point guard play or a legitimate interior, you can't expect to win in this league. Entering a season being deficient in either is how teams guarantee their tank. Doing so while having playoff aspirations is absolutely foolish imo. We over-performed if anything and I'm sticking to it.

Eh, I'm not really on board with all that. Dwight had some good games, true. But let's not forget his abject failure to defend anything except for other dinosaur big men. Like how he played off guys penetrating to go for the rebound or couldn't handle going out to the 3 point line to defend big men who also have an outside shot. He was frankly terrible guarding the interior most of the time and was super inefficient scoring there on the other end. His rebounds came at the expense of boxing out for the guards to get them, which is what guys like Cody and Marvin do.

I would like the team to have a really good modern big man ... but still see Dwight as the Dwightmare for something like 85 - 95% of the games he played.
Hope is free.
DY_nasty
Head Coach
Posts: 6,674
And1: 2,466
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#286 » by DY_nasty » Tue Apr 2, 2019 11:56 pm

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:I mentioned it last year, but like him or not - Dwight was HUGE for this team on the boards. He won games for us and kept us in games that we had no right being in. Things didn't work out for whatever reason, but his impact being gone is not some net positive.

Our interior is just not functional and if you're missing solid point guard play or a legitimate interior, you can't expect to win in this league. Entering a season being deficient in either is how teams guarantee their tank. Doing so while having playoff aspirations is absolutely foolish imo. We over-performed if anything and I'm sticking to it.

Eh, I'm not really on board with all that. Dwight had some good games, true. But let's not forget his abject failure to defend anything except for other dinosaur big men. Like how he played off guys penetrating to go for the rebound or couldn't handle going out to the 3 point line to defend big men who also have an outside shot. He was frankly terrible guarding the interior most of the time and was super inefficient scoring there on the other end. His rebounds came at the expense of boxing out for the guards to get them, which is what guys like Cody and Marvin do.

I would like the team to have a really good modern big man ... but still see Dwight as the Dwightmare for something like 85 - 95% of the games he played.
Dwight's negatives are shared with every big we have on the roster this season though :-? you can't throw that production out and just NOT replace it - then expect a better result. And the vast majority of those games where he was shooting us out of it was Batum's fault for feeding him in the first place instead of asserting himself like his contract demands. Dwight would go 1-8 but you could bet he'd doing his part in getting us into the bonus so that our massive shooting droughts, like we just saw against Utah, are mitigated by trips to the free throw line.

I'll never say he was perfect of course but he got way more hate than he should've and his dismissal was done with a round of applause instead of an objective look at what he brought to the table. You guys say that Dwight was bad on perimeter when Willie is unable to guard it at all. He's not the shot blocker he used to be on the inside but Biz can't even play aggressive because he's so concerned about staying on the floor now. And Cody? He can't go up strong anymore at all. So yeah its a big deal imo

Now that we essentially have no starting C on the roster or any decent one for that matter, we can't dictate any sort of play. We got significantly worse and I'm kind of shocked people don't bring it up more.
Bassman
Analyst
Posts: 3,738
And1: 656
Joined: Jul 02, 2006
Location: Sunny SW Florida; NC born & bred
       

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#287 » by Bassman » Wed Apr 3, 2019 12:52 am

DY’s point is an important one. Dwight was a problem, but he produced a certain level of impact and presence in the middle. The bigger point, and most important one, is our relative lack of a 5. In this draft we need a LOT, but our pick better be either a great shooting 2/3 or a quality big man who can defend, block shots, and score as needed.
I continue to wait...and hope...for the return to Hornet's glory.
Splitta
Sophomore
Posts: 211
And1: 171
Joined: Oct 25, 2018

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#288 » by Splitta » Wed Apr 3, 2019 1:03 am

DY_nasty wrote:
Vanderbilt_Grad wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:I mentioned it last year, but like him or not - Dwight was HUGE for this team on the boards. He won games for us and kept us in games that we had no right being in. Things didn't work out for whatever reason, but his impact being gone is not some net positive.

Our interior is just not functional and if you're missing solid point guard play or a legitimate interior, you can't expect to win in this league. Entering a season being deficient in either is how teams guarantee their tank. Doing so while having playoff aspirations is absolutely foolish imo. We over-performed if anything and I'm sticking to it.

Eh, I'm not really on board with all that. Dwight had some good games, true. But let's not forget his abject failure to defend anything except for other dinosaur big men. Like how he played off guys penetrating to go for the rebound or couldn't handle going out to the 3 point line to defend big men who also have an outside shot. He was frankly terrible guarding the interior most of the time and was super inefficient scoring there on the other end. His rebounds came at the expense of boxing out for the guards to get them, which is what guys like Cody and Marvin do.

I would like the team to have a really good modern big man ... but still see Dwight as the Dwightmare for something like 85 - 95% of the games he played.
Dwight's negatives are shared with every big we have on the roster this season though :-? you can't throw that production out and just NOT replace it - then expect a better result. And the vast majority of those games where he was shooting us out of it was Batum's fault for feeding him in the first place instead of asserting himself like his contract demands. Dwight would go 1-8 but you could bet he'd doing his part in getting us into the bonus so that our massive shooting droughts, like we just saw against Utah, are mitigated by trips to the free throw line.

I'll never say he was perfect of course but he got way more hate than he should've and his dismissal was done with a round of applause instead of an objective look at what he brought to the table. You guys say that Dwight was bad on perimeter when Willie is unable to guard it at all. He's not the shot blocker he used to be on the inside but Biz can't even play aggressive because he's so concerned about staying on the floor now. And Cody? He can't go up strong anymore at all. So yeah its a big deal imo

I don't think Dwight made much difference in the team since the record this year is about the same as last year. Other than Bridges and Graham who have made little difference, the team is about the same. Except for Kemba, Lamb and maybe the young guys, the rest of the roster is pure trash. It is a pity that it took JB most of the year to figure that out which has had a negative impact on our record.

Now that we essentially have no starting C on the roster or any decent one for that matter, we can't dictate any sort of play. We got significantly worse and I'm kind of shocked people don't bring it up more.
Splitta
Sophomore
Posts: 211
And1: 171
Joined: Oct 25, 2018

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#289 » by Splitta » Wed Apr 3, 2019 1:05 am

Splitta wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:
Vanderbilt_Grad wrote:Eh, I'm not really on board with all that. Dwight had some good games, true. But let's not forget his abject failure to defend anything except for other dinosaur big men. Like how he played off guys penetrating to go for the rebound or couldn't handle going out to the 3 point line to defend big men who also have an outside shot. He was frankly terrible guarding the interior most of the time and was super inefficient scoring there on the other end. His rebounds came at the expense of boxing out for the guards to get them, which is what guys like Cody and Marvin do.

I would like the team to have a really good modern big man ... but still see Dwight as the Dwightmare for something like 85 - 95% of the games he played.
Dwight's negatives are shared with every big we have on the roster this season though :-? you can't throw that production out and just NOT replace it - then expect a better result. And the vast majority of those games where he was shooting us out of it was Batum's fault for feeding him in the first place instead of asserting himself like his contract demands. Dwight would go 1-8 but you could bet he'd doing his part in getting us into the bonus so that our massive shooting droughts, like we just saw against Utah, are mitigated by trips to the free throw line.

I'll never say he was perfect of course but he got way more hate than he should've and his dismissal was done with a round of applause instead of an objective look at what he brought to the table. You guys say that Dwight was bad on perimeter when Willie is unable to guard it at all. He's not the shot blocker he used to be on the inside but Biz can't even play aggressive because he's so concerned about staying on the floor now. And Cody? He can't go up strong anymore at all. So yeah its a big deal imo

Now that we essentially have no starting C on the roster or any decent one for that matter, we can't dictate any sort of play. We got significantly worse and I'm kind of shocked people don't bring it up more.
bravor
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,943
And1: 455
Joined: Dec 30, 2015
 

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#290 » by bravor » Mon Apr 8, 2019 1:47 pm

I don't want to bring another Clifford debate, everyone moved on and obviously some are happy it worked out for him. It's kinda funny though to read some Orlando topics.

Which lead me to Borrego. I don't get why he was chosen over say, Larranaga (and there was another i forgot who could have 'checked the boxes').
The guy - and the team - has no identity, can't bring solutions to attack simple zones, and obviously does not like defensive profiles. Player management is one thing, but when the result is almost the same with any kind of players, it's safe to say it's on him. He barely played the youngsters, and is clueless to bring any value from the frontcourt. Ball movement is worst than with Clifford as well (except last seaosn with Howard).

The pool of talent was enough to perform (albeit his starting 5 was never accountable of some bad starts), the preparation of some key games against tanking opponents (Cleveland, Knicks, hawks..) has been 'facepalming'. A good coach prevent overconfidence (/cough 120% guaranteed :roll: ) especially when its one of the bad habits of this team.

As young as he is - he can only improve -, there are some serious question marks about him. If the season finishes without play offs because of that last Orlando game, it will be kinda ironical. But even if they make it, it will be a pyrrhus victory as the team will most likely have nothing to build on from this (potential) 40-42 season.
User avatar
BigSlam
Forum Mod - Hornets
Forum Mod - Hornets
Posts: 44,865
And1: 2,615
Joined: Jul 01, 2005

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#291 » by BigSlam » Mon Apr 8, 2019 2:49 pm

His line ups are just bizarre at times.

Yesterday he had, in the 3rd which allowed them to come back:

Graham - Monk - Lamb - Bridges - Kaminksy

And had them out there for an extended period of time.
BBMF'ers
User avatar
fatlever
Senior Mod - Hornets
Senior Mod - Hornets
Posts: 51,284
And1: 8,176
Joined: Jun 04, 2001
Location: Terrapin Station
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#292 » by fatlever » Mon Apr 8, 2019 3:50 pm

He also had a stretch of kemba graham and monk at the same time... and we were getting crushed on the glass... obviously

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app
Hornet Mania
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,479
And1: 3,736
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Location: Dornbirn, Austria
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#293 » by Hornet Mania » Mon Apr 8, 2019 4:10 pm

Give them a few more years of Cliff and we'll see how they feel. JB has his warts, and maybe he's not the answer, but I was 100% over Cliff by the time he left.

Cliff was way too married to certain vet role players (inexplicable choices as well, like Neal/Maxiell/MCW), way too inflexible with his lineups and never showed any commitment to turning young prospects into contributors. He's the type of guy who comes in and does a solid job, then you realize there is no next gear. Happy for Orlando fans and glad they're enjoying him, but I for one have no regrets.
User avatar
BigSlam
Forum Mod - Hornets
Forum Mod - Hornets
Posts: 44,865
And1: 2,615
Joined: Jul 01, 2005

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#294 » by BigSlam » Mon Apr 8, 2019 5:14 pm

Didn’t Kemba show his greatest improvement while playing under Clifford?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BBMF'ers
User avatar
SWedd523
General Manager
Posts: 8,792
And1: 1,129
Joined: Jul 07, 2009
   

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#295 » by SWedd523 » Mon Apr 8, 2019 5:20 pm

BigSlam wrote:Didn’t Kemba show his greatest improvement while playing under Clifford?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And his best season under JB
Image
User avatar
BigSlam
Forum Mod - Hornets
Forum Mod - Hornets
Posts: 44,865
And1: 2,615
Joined: Jul 01, 2005

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#296 » by BigSlam » Mon Apr 8, 2019 5:37 pm

SWedd523 wrote:
BigSlam wrote:Didn’t Kemba show his greatest improvement while playing under Clifford?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And his best season under JB

Which was a result of playing under Clifford?
BBMF'ers
W_HAMILTON
RealGM
Posts: 15,257
And1: 12,030
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
 

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#297 » by W_HAMILTON » Mon Apr 8, 2019 6:02 pm

BigSlam wrote:His line ups are just bizarre at times.

Yesterday he had, in the 3rd which allowed them to come back:

Graham - Monk - Lamb - Bridges - Kaminksy

And had them out there for an extended period of time.


If you think that is bad, this is the lineup he played early in the fourth:

Graham - Monk - Lamb - Bridges - Biyombo

We were up 83-75 at the time and that lineup didn't score while they were out there. That was the "danger lineup" I was referring to in the game thread. I could see that was going to be a disaster from a mile away. I guess you could say that we were shorthanded and there wasn't anyone else he could play, but putting that lineup out there, on the road, in crunch time, in a must-win game, was ignorant.
Howard Mass wrote:You do not have the right to not be offended. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean that it breaks the board rules.
Splitta
Sophomore
Posts: 211
And1: 171
Joined: Oct 25, 2018

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#298 » by Splitta » Mon Apr 8, 2019 6:18 pm

W_HAMILTON wrote:
BigSlam wrote:His line ups are just bizarre at times.

Yesterday he had, in the 3rd which allowed them to come back:

Graham - Monk - Lamb - Bridges - Kaminksy

And had them out there for an extended period of time.


If you think that is bad, this is the lineup he played early in the fourth:

Graham - Monk - Lamb - Bridges - Biyombo

We were up 83-75 at the time and that lineup didn't score while they were out there. That was the "danger lineup" I was referring to in the game thread. I could see that was going to be a disaster from a mile away. I guess you could say that we were shorthanded and there wasn't anyone else he could play, but putting that lineup out there, on the road, in crunch time, in a must-win game, was ignorant.


In fairness, he was limited in his available players (no Marv, MKG or CZ) and some guys had to rest. Would you have preferred to see Willy, Batum or that guy they just signed? Don't think so. Not much depth to work with IMO.
W_HAMILTON
RealGM
Posts: 15,257
And1: 12,030
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
 

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#299 » by W_HAMILTON » Mon Apr 8, 2019 6:50 pm

Splitta wrote:In fairness, he was limited in his available players (no Marv, MKG or CZ) and some guys had to rest. Would you have preferred to see Willy, Batum or that guy they just signed? Don't think so. Not much depth to work with IMO.


I would have preferred he structured his lineups so that we didn't have to rely on a lineup like that to start the fourth.

Or better yet, play our best guys more minutes. If Bridges is capable of playing 36 minutes in that game, I would think Lamb, Kaminsky, and Bacon -- all of which played 28 minutes -- would be capable of putting in a few extra minutes as well.
Howard Mass wrote:You do not have the right to not be offended. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean that it breaks the board rules.
User avatar
SWedd523
General Manager
Posts: 8,792
And1: 1,129
Joined: Jul 07, 2009
   

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#300 » by SWedd523 » Mon Apr 8, 2019 8:30 pm

BigSlam wrote:
SWedd523 wrote:
BigSlam wrote:Didn’t Kemba show his greatest improvement while playing under Clifford?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And his best season under JB

Which was a result of playing under Clifford?

lol explain that one to me.

He played for 5 years under Clifford and had his best season as soon as Clifford left.
Image

Return to Charlotte Hornets