GLF wrote:Scase wrote:CPT wrote:
Trying to bring this over from the Olympic thread and not sure it will work.
Anyway, good post.
I am definitely guilty of being the “someone is wrong on the internet!” guy from time to time. I sometimes try to hedge, but when people do things like call BBQ + Dick “The Core Four” and start talking about the bright future, I have a disproportionately negative reaction. I’m even doing it a bit now (The Core Four? come the **** on). Optimism should be allowed.
Strangely, while a championship is always the goal, I’m very much in favour of being good. There’s value in being one of those good teams, like the current Knicks or Pacers, or even the Lebronto Raptors. It’s fun to watch a team that wins a lot more than it loses and plays multiple rounds in the playoffs. Maybe it’s because we’ve won and some of the pressure is off, I don’t know.
To bring it back to RJ, I thought the point about giving the benefit of the doubt to shooters was pretty interesting. For me, it’s just so much easier to imagine successful lineups when a guy can shoot. It’s why I still kind of liked theoretical Gary Trent Jr. He could shoot and seemed to have the capability to play defense, even though he didn’t really do it. It just made it easier to plug him into different lineups.
With RJ, his shooting is coming around, and his defense is somewhere between bad and average, depending on who you ask. A generous interpretation would be that he’s a good scoring wing who won’t hurt you (too much) on defense. An unfavourable interpretation would be that he can’t shoot and can’t defend, so while the scoring is nice, it’s not enough to justify the pressure it puts on the rest of the lineup to pick up the slack.
In general, when you’ve got “non-shooters,” that’s probably why they get more criticism for every part of their game. With IQ, it’s fairly easy to see how he could be part of a theoretically successful lineup. With RJ, it’s a bit tougher… like, now we need another shooter, and defender, and we still need another star… you start running out of positions and playing time for these theoretical players.
It’s not about RJ personally, and I think we’d all love to see him become the type of player you’d be happy to have in any lineup, but until he does, he’ll probably continue to get criticism, probably beyond the amount a player of his caliber deserves.
This is a solid and measured take I like it. No one has anything against RJ as a person, it's that his game leaves a lot to be desired as a long term piece. RJ is fine for now and can be a big part of us getting back to a high 40's and possibly even a low 50s win type team, but his skill set is not something you find on any championship team in a key starting player. As it stands he absolutely is a defensive liability, and his shooting while greatly improved on the Raps, is no guarantee of future success. Most people are saying chill out on him being a good shooter now, it's been 30 games. Lets see it for a whole season before we claim all is well, that's it.
GLF wrote:Why does it have to be RJ that comes off the bench though if we become a contending team? If we get the 3&D Wing we are gonna need regardless of who is on this team, RJ can just move to the 2 and that player will play the 3 and we’re set. Gradey will be the one to move to the bench. And if we end up needing a “true” number 1 then that has nothing to do with RJ and more to do with Scottie. I just don’t even understand why were are making such absolute statements like this so early in the rebuild. These guys haven’t even had a full season and training camp and people are already making these definitive statements about young players. It seems very pointless and weird. But that’s just me.
RJ can 100% be a contributor on a contending team the way he currently is. Just not as a number 1 or 2 unless he makes a big leap which we already know. Scottie and IQ haven’t even proven they can yet and IQ has only played terrible in the playoffs so far in his career, and that was coming off the bench. At least RJ has been decent in the playoffs STARTING.
To me where things come across as people being “negative’ or “haters” is because it’s like they want to prevent anyone who is optimistic from being optimistic. It’s like it pisses them off or something lol even though they say it doesn’t. The actions don’t seem to match that. To be this annoyed over a couple people calling RJ an average defender when stats show he’s bad seems strange to me lol
Yes some people are saying RJ is an average defender when the stats show he’s bad. Fine make your points about that, but that’s not all y’all have been saying or angry about. And I do want to make clear the stats may show IQ as a good defender, but with us he was also very bad. Especially at the point of attack. Even his off ball defence that was able to shine in New York wasn’t as good here.
New York has been a great defensive team for a while. If you watched the games IQ played with us you realized very quickly New York’s defensive system and players were able to hide his flaws or make up for his flaws. Also IQ would have mostly been guarding bench players over there as opposed to starters like RJ. If there are stats to prove he played good defence with us I would have no problem being proven wrong. I just think RJ isn’t the only bad defender on this team but seems to get the most critique about being bad lol
Just because IQ can shoot doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have flaws he needs to work on to really be a good lead guard in this league. Especially once the playoffs come around for this team. His struggles in the playoffs are not for no reason. And I love IQ and plan on being patient and giving him grace because I understand growth isn’t linear.
But it’s just weird to me that because a guy can shoot all his other flaws that are not minor flaws are just ignored. But because another player is an inconsistent shooter his flaws are magnified and positives downplayed. Positives that are also needed in the playoffs. Shooting is very important, do not get me wrong, but there’s also more to the game than just that.
And I’m not saying IQ isn’t good at other things because he is, but he’s only elite at that one thing. As a lead guard he too needs to be better at many other things. And he could just as easily be off this team when we’re contending as RJ. Because at least RJ can technically play a couple positions. Unless you have a big, tall strong defensive PG like Jrue Holiday or something you don’t want IQ playing the 2 for long stretches bc we would be undersized big time.
I just think all the talk about who will be here when we’re contending is way too premature. And you can have your opinions on that for sure, but too many people here state their opinion as fact or talk in such absolutes and that’s what rubs people the wrong way I would like to think. The facts about RJ’s defence are the facts and I respect that convo. But he’s not the only bad defender on this team. We have A LOT. Why he’s the only one being critiqued to death bc 2-3 people wrongfully said he is average (not even good or great but average) is beyond me lol. But to each their own. Sorry for the long post lol
I outright don't see RJ "deserving" a spot in the SL over Gradey long term, if for no other reason than the limitations to his game. RJ is great at drawing fouls and going to the rim, and that's about where it ends. Gradey has shown he can shoot the 3, he knows how to operate in a movement centric offence, and shows plenty of flashes of cutting and offensive awareness/vision. He is also a defensive liability, but he's also only 20, played 50 games in the NBA, and still has a teenagers body to him.
RJ conversely spent close to 5 years under one of the most prolific defensive coaches of the last 20 years, has a full on NBA ready body, and has played over 300 career NBA games, and his defence is still pretty bad.
The reason why IQ doesn't get brought up as much, is because IQs elite skills are heavily in demand, RJs are not. The NBA is in the 3 point era, it is also in an offence first era. 3 point shooting is absolutely integral, and much harder to shut down overall. RJ brings old school skills to a modern NBA, and has a game that requires nothing more to counter, than simply back off of him. And this will become much more apparent when the only consistent 3p threat in the SL, is our PG.
IQ has shown that his defence is decent in a proper system, we had zero defensive system last year, hence him looking bad. Hell, even OG wasn't looking great and no one is ever going to question his acumen. RJ looked downright bad his entire entire career in a great defensive system, and just as bad, if not worse here.
Gradey is more fit to play the 2 than the 3 IMO, so slotting in a 3+D player opens up a SL where you have 3 very good to elite 3p shooters, Scottie who will likely hover at or slightly below league average, and then Jak/whoever replaces him. We have been one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in the NBA for MANY years in a row, making yet another mediocre to bad 3pt shooter a prime part of the offence is just asking to lose.
The team can win with RJ as a key part of the team, no one is disputing that. But I don't see any way how a (to date) inefficient scorer with no range is going to be a key part of a contending team. The reason people say he's a perfect fit for the bench, isn't that he's a bench player, but rather that they want to keep him on the team when it gets to that next level, but in a different role to maximize his impact.
I would rather have 3pt shooting in our SL and RJ the 6th man, over trading him. But I would rather trade him (eventually), than have him being a permanent fixture in the SL.
This is all obviously (I would hope so) based on him not taking any substantial steps as a better defender (likely) or a more efficient shooter (unlikely). No one is going to scream for him to be traded or sent to the bench if he develops a consistent 3p shot and stop becoming an absolute liability on defence, they just don't see it as all too likely.
Good points. I can respect that. It is easier to incorporate a shooter into a lineup than a non shooter, you are right. Your point about Gradey showing he can fit into the movement offence, you don’t think RJ has shown that? I think it’s a big reason why he’s looked better with us so far than the Knicks. He cuts well and moves well without the ball too. But he’s a much better finisher than Gradey currently. Do you disagree with that or am I just confusing what you meant?
I guess I’m just more of the let’s let things play out before we start saying who will be here and who won’t. We are a good few years away from being a contender if we ever become one. So many things can happen. So many players could end up not developing the way one thought good or bad. If people want to be optimistic that the RJ we have seen with us and in the Olympics is closer to the RJ we are gonna get moving I see no harm in that. We are all fans of this team and want to see the team do well and the players succeed. The offseason is the best time to be optimistic. If they end up being wrong oh well. What fun is it being a fan of a team if you can’t even be a little overly optimistic about your top players. It makes fandom fun.
And I know you say you don’t mind people being optimistic, but you just always seem to want to rain on people’s parade once they show any optimism toward RJ and that’s the part that confuses me. I know some of the things some people may say may be “unlikely” based on RJ’s history, and a couple people have said he’s an average defender when I agree with you he is not, stats are stats. But why does it seem to bother you so much that almost anytime someone is optimistic about RJ moving forward you have to chime is to almost “humble” someone or make them “chill out” on their expectations. It hurts no one if someone expects RJ to be the RJ we’ve seen the past few months and then he reverts back to old RJ. Oh well, they were wrong, we move.
It just feels like you always want to take the fun out of everything in the name of being a realist, at a time that it feels so unnecessary because RJ is playing really well. If RJ were playing terrible I would understand and that would seem like more of the right time. But hey I do enjoy you as a poster and I can’t tell anyone how to post or how to be a fan. We can’t all be the same, that would be boring. But it’s just something I’ve noticed with you particularly on the RJ topic, not any other topic really, and that’s what makes me see the “hater” talk as seeming valid in this case. And I also hate that term and feel it is used too loosely.
But I guess my question is, why does people’s optimism specifically about RJ seem to annoy you this much? And I know you keep talking about the incorrect facts about his defence but it truly seems way beyond that. Because it’s literally only like 3 ppl who I’ve seen say it (maybe I’m wrong) and I’ve never seen you do this with any other current Raptor (maybe I just missed it. I’m not on here that much). Hopefully this question doesn’t piss you off or make you feel like you’re repeating yourself a million times. Just an honest question. I have no ill intent. Just trying to understand your mindset.
I want to say I appreciate you trying to have a constructive discussion, it doesn't happen often enough, and is likely the cause of my irritation with a certain group of posters.
I'll try to address your comments in order.
By movement offence, for Gradey I think currently he would be ideal as a movement shooter. Think Jamal Murray, or Curry, with less talent. He shows the ability to properly curl off screens and has what looks to be a good motor, so he can probably tire defences out by constantly running around. That stuff is highly disruptive to defences as closing out in the moden NBA is a huge part of defence, and it's so damn hard to do when you have players screening or double screening, the screener rolling or faking the roll, or the roll man getting a wide open 3. He has also shown the ability to cut to the basket and put himself in solid positions, his finishing leaves much to be desired, but I think that is more due to him being a rookie, and not having an NBA body.
RJ is great at cutting to the basket and finishing, as well as drawing contact. But at the end of the day a 38-40% 3pt shooter just provides way more value than someone who potentially clogs the already clogged paint with Scottie and Jak, not to mention how much more it spreads the floor out for everyone else, and just the fact that 3 > 2.
As for the optimism, that's not the issue. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if people want to say "He isn't very good at X, but I think he can improve" that's fine, and if anything, I think it's the healthiest way to approach it. It just becomes extremely difficult to have actual honest discussions about players, when the moment you say anything not ovewhelmingly positive, you are labelled a "hater" or a "tanker", as you can hilariously and unironically see posted
immediately after you responded to my post. It's irrational, antognistic, and shows no attempt to have event remotely constructive talks. It's just stupid tribalism, and it's so very tiring.
And my realism is not solely directed at RJ, he's just the one that so many of the same people seem to take sure issue with. My guess is that it is primarly due to him being a local kid, but I can't say for sure. Every single player on this team has pros and cons, and since we have 4 players that are guaranteed starters, they get talked about the most. RJ is just the one with the most holes in his game.
Scottie is a very good 2 way player, has elite court vision and passing, but his shooting sucks and needs to improve.
IQ is an exceptional 3 point shooter, has average defence, sucks at facilitating at a high level and breaking down defences. But he has shown plenty of promise on the knicks from both the starter and backup role.
Jak is a solid defensive big, and has a great touch around the rim, but he has zero range and sub standard hands.
RJ is great at getting to basket and drawing fouls, but his defence is really bad, he is a mediocre FT shooter even in his best years, and just in general posesses a skill set that isn't really that widly utilized to great success, because it's very limited and easy to shut down.
I'm critical of all our players, some of them just are "worse" players than others. RJ IMO, is the worst of the 4, so naturally I'm going to pinpoint that more often as I think there are just more issues than the others.
People constantly dump on how Scottie isn't a #1, and tons of people say he will never be. My opinion is that he definitely has the potential, but it's pretty unlikely. It's no different than the criticism lobbed at RJ, he
could become wildly efficient, and he
could become a neutral or even + defender, but it's pretty unlikely.
Hell, if anything I think Scottie being a #1, is more likely than RJ becoming a top tier scorer or true 2 way player. I keep coming back to the same thing all the time with RJ, I would be over the moon if these things came true about him, and if his play at the end of the year carried over. But I cannot for the life of me have some unfounded optimism based off 30 games, it just does not jive with reality.
People just seem to defend RJ with so much more ferver than anyone else on the team, and it confuses me, the optimism isn't the issue. It's the optimism that turns into calling people anti this, and anti that, just because they don't agree. There isn't anyone that I see giving criticism about RJ and his place on the team, that is outright turning around and calling the people that are talking so highly of him, some Masai shill, or RJ stan, yet speaking the opposite results in name calling all the time.
