The Official Rudy Gobert thread

[shrink]

I also wanted to comment on a specious statement I hear a lot of posters throwing around. “Ant is better than Gobert, so he shouldn’t have to change his game to fit Rudy.”

Sounds true, right? And there is little doubt that Ant is the future, or that he is a more impactful player than Gobert.

But how about we let our discussion stray over to the greatest player to ever influence message boards .. Michael Jordan.

Jordan was clearly the best player on his team, and played like it from Day One. He led his team to the playoffs, and in the first round, the Bulls went 1-9. MJ even averaged 43.7 PPG his second year, and the Bulls lost all three games. In Year 4, Jordan realized that he had to involve his teammates, maximize their (lesser) abilities for the TEAM to be successful. And man, did that make the team successful!

Getting back to our team, what did we see from Ant? For the most of the season, he’d usually reject Gobert’s massive screens, or try to go one-on-one with Gobert’s defender waiting for him in the paint. Sometimes he’d still succeed because he’s so talented, but he’d be far more successful using Gobert’s strengths to his own advantage, like Mike Conley does, rather than refusing to alter his game. And it’s the team that suffers when he doesn’t.

[TimberKat]

Just wanted to add that Ant doesn't just go one on one but one on two or three also. That is a lot of work on yourself

[urinesane]

I also wanted to comment on a specious statement I hear a lot of posters throwing around. “Ant is better than Gobert, so he shouldn’t have to change his game to fit Rudy.”

Sounds true, right? And there is little doubt that Ant is the future, or that he is a more impactful player than Gobert.

But let’s talk stray over to the greatest player to ever influence message boards .. Michael Jordan.

Jordan was clearly the best player on his team, and played like it from Day One. He led his team to the playoffs, and in the first round, the Bulls went 1-9. MJ even averaged 43.7 PPG his second year, and the Bulls lost all three games. In Year 4, Jordan realized that he had to involve his teammates, maximize their (lesser) abilities for the TEAM to be successful. And man, did that make the team successful!

Getting back to our team, what did we see from Ant? For the most of the season, he’d usually reject Gobert’s massive screens, or try to go one-on-one with Gobert’s defender waiting for him in the paint. Sometimes he’d still succeed because he’s so talented, but he’d be far more successful using Gobert’s strengths to his own advantage, like Mike Conley does, rather than refusing to alter his game. And it’s the team that suffers when he doesn’t.

The good thing is that he seems aware enough to realize that now that the league knows what he can do, that he will have to adapt to this and find ways to get his teammates involved in order to get what he wants. It's nice that he clearly is the type of guy that wants others around him to be successful, but now it's time to take that next step and be more of a creator for his teammates.

It's the natural progression to super stardom and he is way ahead of schedule, I have no reason to believe Ant can't or won't make the proper adjustments to take the next step (I think he is All-NBA next season).

[Klomp]

I also wanted to comment on a specious statement I hear a lot of posters throwing around. “Ant is better than Gobert, so he shouldn’t have to change his game to fit Rudy.”

Sounds true, right? And there is little doubt that Ant is the future, or that he is a more impactful player than Gobert.

But let’s talk stray over to the greatest player to ever influence message boards .. Michael Jordan.

Jordan was clearly the best player on his team, and played like it from Day One. He led his team to the playoffs, and in the first round, the Bulls went 1-9. MJ even averaged 43.7 PPG his second year, and the Bulls lost all three games. In Year 4, Jordan realized that he had to involve his teammates, maximize their (lesser) abilities for the TEAM to be successful. And man, did that make the team successful!

Getting back to our team, what did we see from Ant? For the most of the season, he’d usually reject Gobert’s massive screens, or try to go one-on-one with Gobert’s defender waiting for him in the paint. Sometimes he’d still succeed because he’s so talented, but he’d be far more successful using Gobert’s strengths to his own advantage, like Mike Conley does, rather than refusing to alter his game. And it’s the team that suffers when he doesn’t.

[TimberKat]

I just did a quick review of Twolves’ record when Gobert not playing. They were 8-4 and on the surface, it looks like Gobert is hurting the team or not effective at all. But let's dive into those 8 wins and see how Wolves won:

5-Nov HOU Towns played, Prince 16pts; Team shooting: 61%, 45.5%, 80%
16-Dec OKC Rivers 20pts; Ried 28pts; Team shooting: 49.4%, 48%, 56%
18-Dec CHI Rivers 14pts; Team shooting 65.5%, 53.5%, 81.3%
19-Dec DAL Rivers 14pts' 3-4 from three; Ried 27pts; Nowell 18pt;Team shooting 47.2%, 38.7%, 83.3%
19-Jan TOR Nowell 5-10; won by 2 pts; team shooting 50.6%, 42.5%, 91.3
21-Jan HOU Ant 44; team shooting 46%, 41.5%, 83.3%
1-Feb GSW Rivers 10pt; Dlo 29; Ant 27; team shot poorly; only 11 TOs; a good win with poor shooting stats
8-Feb UTA Nowell 30; Garza 25; team shooting 57%, 53.5%, 100%

If we take out the GSW game, in the other 7 wins, Wolves somehow managed to shot exceptionally well from threes – 119 for 256 for 46.48%.

My argument is: this way of winner is not sustainable for the season or a playoff run? Ant and DLo needed great numbers but also need Rivers and Nowell to play way above their norm. As a team they would need to shoot above 43% from 3s to win. The best shooting teams in the league avgs 39%. Of course, I assumed the team has as many open looks with or without Gobert. So sure, Ant looked great and must had avg over 35 pts in those games. I could even say Gobert hurt Rivers, Nowell, and Garza’s game. However, is it realistic to win on a regular basis this way? I am sure teams will figure out ways to stop us if that is all we do.

All those who think Gobert is in the way of Ant is likely thinking we should play small ball but who actually have success with small ball? The Rockets played with Howard and Capela (who destroyed KAT). I don't see Howard/Capela stop Harden getting to the basket. They really only played small ball for half a year in 2019 and was 44-28 and lost in second round. You can argue they play small in 2016 but again loss in second round. Maybe a 3pt shooting center like Lopez is a better fit? But we already had Towns and did that last year. I also heard Chuck call out the center shouldn't take 3s.

You all can believe whatever you want to believe. I do suggest you look at it from different perspectives and think about how it could work before credit yourself to be smarter than the Twolves front office. We all wish we gotten Brown, Booker, KD, etc. for the price but that wasn't available.

[Magoose]

All those who think Gobert is in the way of Ant is likely thinking we should play small ball but who actually have success with small ball? The Rockets played with Howard and Capela (who destroyed KAT). I don't see Howard/Capela stop Harden getting to the basket. They really only played small ball for half a year in 2019 and was 44-28 and lost in second round. You can argue they play small in 2016 but again loss in second round. Maybe a 3pt shooting center like Lopez is a better fit? But we already had Towns and did that last year. I also heard Chuck call out the center shouldn't take 3s.

You all can believe whatever you want to believe. I do suggest you look at it from different perspectives and think about how it could work before credit yourself to be smarter than the Twolves front office. We all wish we gotten Brown, Booker, KD, etc. for the price but that wasn't available.

Fair enough, but I'd like to comment on two things you wrote.

1) Let's put it this way: I think Gobert is at least not helping with Ants drives being more efficient, but I haven't checked the numbers, it's just what the eye test tells me.
But does this perception automatically mean we have to switch to smallball? It's not black and white, either/or.

Why not just let KAT stay at the 5 so he can benefit from his quickness compared to the 5s or bulkier 4s trying to guard him on the offensive end?
And why not try to bring in a big body backup at the 5 in addition to Towns when he's in foul trouble or for certain matchups (someone like Hartenstein e.g.)?
And why not try adding a 4 that would be able to physically match up with most of the 5s and hit the occasional 3? At least I would have explored that route before spending that amount of assets for a player that didn't fit (at least on paper) with the personel I already have in place.
Why would you even move your arguably offensively most gifted player to another position just because of a trade for less talented player?
And finally why would you let your GM who has a below average track record of trades but is known to be very good at finding quality players in the draft trade away most of your draft assets?

This trade did not make sense on so many levels.

2) Yes, KD, Brown, Booker weren't available at that time. But does that mean you gotta settle for a mediocre deal and questionable fit at best just for the sake of making a trade? Why not just stay put, be patient and wait for a better opportunity?

Because the new ownership probably wanted our GM to make a big splashy move no matter what. To me this still screams marketing move to get acknowleged by the national media more than anything else.

So still hate the move, the amount of assets spend, hate the fit. Not hating Gobert.

[Guest84]

I also wanted to comment on a specious statement I hear a lot of posters throwing around. “Ant is better than Gobert, so he shouldn’t have to change his game to fit Rudy.”

Sounds true, right? And there is little doubt that Ant is the future, or that he is a more impactful player than Gobert.

But let’s talk stray over to the greatest player to ever influence message boards .. Michael Jordan.

Jordan was clearly the best player on his team, and played like it from Day One. He led his team to the playoffs, and in the first round, the Bulls went 1-9. MJ even averaged 43.7 PPG his second year, and the Bulls lost all three games. In Year 4, Jordan realized that he had to involve his teammates, maximize their (lesser) abilities for the TEAM to be successful. And man, did that make the team successful!

Getting back to our team, what did we see from Ant? For the most of the season, he’d usually reject Gobert’s massive screens, or try to go one-on-one with Gobert’s defender waiting for him in the paint. Sometimes he’d still succeed because he’s so talented, but he’d be far more successful using Gobert’s strengths to his own advantage, like Mike Conley does, rather than refusing to alter his game. And it’s the team that suffers when he doesn’t.

I get the overall point (and agree) but we have to provide a bit of context with the Jordan reference. A lot was going on in his early years with half the team being on different substances and being ill-prepared to play.

Also at that time, his running mate (Scottie) was brought in and a coaching change was made. Said coach provided structure and challenge MJ to succeed within the team concept. So it wasn't just MJ figuring it out. Some key moments transpired in order for that to happen. MJ's obsession to be great paired with a coach who understood how to manage him and along with a great system helped.

[urinesane]

All those who think Gobert is in the way of Ant is likely thinking we should play small ball but who actually have success with small ball? The Rockets played with Howard and Capela (who destroyed KAT). I don't see Howard/Capela stop Harden getting to the basket. They really only played small ball for half a year in 2019 and was 44-28 and lost in second round. You can argue they play small in 2016 but again loss in second round. Maybe a 3pt shooting center like Lopez is a better fit? But we already had Towns and did that last year. I also heard Chuck call out the center shouldn't take 3s.

You all can believe whatever you want to believe. I do suggest you look at it from different perspectives and think about how it could work before credit yourself to be smarter than the Twolves front office. We all wish we gotten Brown, Booker, KD, etc. for the price but that wasn't available.

Fair enough, but I'd like to comment on two things you wrote.

1) Let's put it this way: I think Gobert is at least not helping with Ants drives being more efficient, but I haven't checked the numbers, it's just what the eye test tells me.
But does this perception automatically mean we have to switch to smallball? It's not black and white, either/or.

Why not just let KAT stay at the 5 so he can benefit from his quickness compared to the 5s or bulkier 4s trying to guard him on the offensive end?
And why not try to bring in a big body backup at the 5 in addition to Towns when he's in foul trouble or for certain matchups (someone like Hartenstein e.g.)?
And why not try adding a 4 that would be able to physically match up with most of the 5s and hit the occasional 3? At least I would have explored that route before spending that amount of assets for a player that didn't fit (at least on paper) with the personel I already have in place.
Why would you even move your arguably offensively most gifted player to another position just because of a trade for less talented player?
And finally why would you let your GM who has a below average track record of trades but is known to be very good at finding quality players in the draft trade away most of your draft assets?

This trade did not make sense on so many levels.

2) Yes, KD, Brown, Booker weren't available at that time. But does that mean you gotta settle for a mediocre deal and questionable fit at best just for the sake of making a trade? Why not just stay put, be patient and wait for a better opportunity?

Because the new ownership probably wanted our GM to make a big splashy move no matter what. To me this still screams marketing move to get acknowleged by the national media more than anything else.

So still hate the move, the amount of assets spend, hate the fit. Not hating Gobert.

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

[Klomp]

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

[Note30]

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

If you're talking about Ant that's true. He's 21 he has time to get better and change and evolve. Gobert is 30, he's who he's going to be. He's had years and years to develop an offensive game. He still doesn't have one.

[Magoose]

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

True, we want Ant to become a better player.

But seriously do we want our 21yo star Shooting Guard to reach that goal by practicing to throw lobs to Gobert, a skillset that requires a certain type of teammate and that even took a highly professional veteran point guard like Conley about one season to master?

Shouldn't he work on his ball handling, mid range, floater game, 3 point consistency, overall decision making and court vision instead?

Part of me thinks there might have been one or two possibilites to make better use of 5 FRP if the goal was to force our star player to adapt and improve his game.

[Klomp]

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

If you're talking about Ant that's true. He's 21 he has time to get better and change and evolve. Gobert is 30, he's who he's going to be. He's had years and years to develop an offensive game. He still doesn't have one.

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

[Note30]

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

If you're talking about Ant that's true. He's 21 he has time to get better and change and evolve. Gobert is 30, he's who he's going to be. He's had years and years to develop an offensive game. He still doesn't have one.

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

[urinesane]

If you're talking about Ant that's true. He's 21 he has time to get better and change and evolve. Gobert is 30, he's who he's going to be. He's had years and years to develop an offensive game. He still doesn't have one.

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

How is that in anyway an equal representation of the logic he used? Just save a post, you're adding nothing to what is finally an enjoyable discussion by making up ridiculous hypotheticals to try and prove a point.

Just read the posts, if you don't have anything worthy to add, that's fine. No more derailing please.

[Note30]

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

How is that in anyway an equal representation of the logic he used? Just save a post, you're adding nothing to what is finally an enjoyable discussion by making up ridiculous hypotheticals to try and prove a point.

Just read the posts, if you don't have anything worthy to add, that's fine. No more derailing please.

I'm not derailing ****. His point was that we continue this path forward with Gobert so that Ant can develop by learning how to play with him.

This is indicating that by increasing the difficulty with which Ant plays by forcing him to play with someone who doesn't fit his style, he will grow.

By that logic, we should make his job as hard as possible, because then he will be forced to grow into an unbelievably talented player because of all the hindrances he faces.

In reality, that's an idea sure, but why push for Gobert who has a limited skills even for a P&R big. There's maybe two other players in the league who are just as offensively limited as Gobert in a starting roll, and even then it's a pretty thin line.

[urinesane]

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

How is that in anyway an equal representation of the logic he used? Just save a post, you're adding nothing to what is finally an enjoyable discussion by making up ridiculous hypotheticals to try and prove a point.

Just read the posts, if you don't have anything worthy to add, that's fine. No more derailing please.

I'm not derailing ****. His point was that we continue this path forward with Gobert so that Ant can develop by learning how to play with him.

This is indicating that by increasing the difficulty with which Ant plays by forcing him to play with someone who doesn't fit his style, he will grow.

By that logic, we should make his job as hard as possible, because then he will be forced to grow into an unbelievably talented player because of all the hindrances he faces.

In reality, that's an idea sure, but why push for Gobert who has a limited skills even for a P&R big. There's maybe two other players in the league who are just as offensively limited as Gobert in a starting roll, and even then it's a pretty thin line.

Sure, why wouldn't you take it to the most extreme example to try and invalidate his point, rather than admit that SOME adversity for Ant is good and will lead to growth without having to take it to the maximum level of adversity somehow equaling better because more bad equals good?

You're being ridiculous and are just arguing to argue at this point. He made a perfectly valid point, but it doesn't fit with your "Rudy is terrible and Ant is the golden child and should have all things catered to his strengths and try to cover up his weaknesses rather than turn them into strengths." weird guy plot you're trying to spin.

Make an actual point or just observe, stop trying to "win" the conversation.

[shrink]

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

How is that in anyway an equal representation of the logic he used? Just save a post, you're adding nothing to what is finally an enjoyable discussion by making up ridiculous hypotheticals to try and prove a point.

Just read the posts, if you don't have anything worthy to add, that's fine. No more derailing please.

I'm not derailing ****. His point was that we continue this path forward with Gobert so that Ant can develop by learning how to play with him.

This is indicating that by increasing the difficulty with which Ant plays by forcing him to play with someone who doesn't fit his style, he will grow.

By that logic, we should make his job as hard as possible, because then he will be forced to grow into an unbelievably talented player because of all the hindrances he faces.

I hate when people use the word “logic” to justify their position, and then do the opposite by launching into a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Extremes

Appeal to Extremes

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

Logical Form:

If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X).

Example #1:

There is no way those Girl Scouts could have sold all those cases of cookies in one hour. If they did, they would have to make $500 in one hour, which, based on an 8 hour day is over a million dollars a year. That is more than most lawyers, doctors, and successful business people make!

[TimberKat]

Is this concept of Gobert negatively impacting Ant's drives based on the fact that a guard with Gobert on the floor is always going to have this hinderance? Or could we look more at scheme and/or Ant's inability this season to leverage Gobert's lob threat?

If they are able to scheme better to make it less clunky (which it definitely was clunky last season) and Ant can gain comfort with Gobert to the point where he can use him as a consistent lob threat when Rudy's man comes to help on a drive... wouldn't that benefit Ant rather than hinder him?

Or is it such a bad fit that it could never work? I am not a high level basketball mind, so I honestly don't know either way, but I would like to believe that it's not impossible for Ant to be effective in driving the ball with Rudy on the floor (it will just take some adjustments by the team, Rudy, and Ant).

Why is it bad to let someone work through their weaknesses in order to become a better player. It's easy to get caught up in the idea to just extract the weakness from the equation, but that doesn't actually make him a better player.

True, we want Ant to become a better player.

But seriously do we want our 21yo star Shooting Guard to reach that goal by practicing to throw lobs to Gobert, a skillset that requires a certain type of teammate and that even took a highly professional veteran point guard like Conley about one season to master?

Shouldn't he work on his ball handling, mid range, floater game, 3 point consistency, overall decision making and court vision instead?

Part of me thinks there might have been one or two possibilites to make better use of 5 FRP if the goal was to force our star player to adapt and improve his game.

Well, you said it. He still needs work on a lot of stuff. The funny thing is you didn’t include passing skills. What is the point of decision making and court vision if you can’t pass? Are you Kyrie?

It’s not just working with Gobert but P&R with any players. Have you ever seen Ant run P&R with Naz, Towns or SloMo? So don’t get fixated on Gobert with Ant’s need for teamwork improvements. Go read Ant’s draft eval on nbadraft.net. It was amazingly accurate and he still has a lot of those shortcomings.

Forcing up a shot with double team is a bad shot. When he gets double that means someone is open. You want the defenders to at least work and move. I see KD pass out of a double team more than Ant. He doesn’t see the cuts and middle of the floor. Ant goes to the hoop like Adrian Peterson running over and ahead of his blockers. The only difference is one guy can’t pass and the other guy can’t catch a pass. He needs to learn to slow down and use his teammates and not just Gobert. Right now, you put any one in the middle and will get in his way.

No, we don’t want a 21 year old learn to throw a lob. A 16 year should had already know how. He is so physically gifted that he can get away with not learning the team game for all these years. If teams know you are half capable of making that lob pass, they will backoff on some of those double teams. He is only 6-5 and can’t overpower bigger players like LBJ or Giannis. You don’t want him to end up on the floor with a bad hip from going to the rim. Learn to use teammates will help a lot.

Therefore, this concept of Gobert doesn’t fit Ant’s game is absurd to me. Gobert so happened to be the guy that set picks most of the time. He is the big relieve valve in the middle when there is a double team. He is there to play defense and not taking shots away from Towns, Ant, and DLo. You should look at him as someone protecting the assets except Ant is too dumb to know how to leverage it. Ant is not sacrificing his game to make Gobert better. He needs to do the right things so he and the team will be better. I can’t understand where the concept of Ant is our man so therefore everyone needs to please him comes from? It’s not how team basketball is played.

When everyone talked about Gobert’s fit in the past. It was about can Kat and Gobert play together. It was never a question about fit with Ant and DLo. Except DLo’s got his own agenda. I don’t know what you mean by 5FRP.

[TimberKat]

If you're talking about Ant that's true. He's 21 he has time to get better and change and evolve. Gobert is 30, he's who he's going to be. He's had years and years to develop an offensive game. He still doesn't have one.

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

If you are not happy with 2 centers, then I think we could close down this conversation. It's not about basketball anymore. We are definitely watching two different game I need to get on that girl scout cookie scam.

[Note30]

Everyone says we HAVE to trade away Gobert because Ant doesn't know how to play with a rolling big yet. To me, if player development of your young stars is the ultimate goal, that's exactly why you trade for someone like Gobert. So Ant can continue to grow and develop his weaknesses.

By that logic let's put 4 centers with limited abilities like Gobert on the floor with Ant and let him try to drive and score then. If he can hit shots through that he's the GOAT.

He's not just a rolling big, he's a rolling big who can only catch specific entry passes or lobs, let's not act like he's the best P&R player in the game. He can't even catch the ball half the time.

If you are not happy with 2 centers, then I think we could close down this conversation. It's not about basketball anymore. We are definitely watching two different game I need to get on that girl scout cookie scam.

What.