Vampirate wrote:Scase wrote:GLF wrote:
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.
I'm going to give RJ one thing.
I think the comparison's to Derozan are bad.
Both are not players you build around for team success however I do think RJ fits a team better as a tertiary piece.
I don't see him as a 6th man, but he's obviously can't be even a 3rd best player on a contender. Imo he's probably somewhere a starter on a contender, but as a 4th-5th option.
I say this because Derozan's game pretty much needed the ball in his hands to be effective, RJ doesn't. RJ despite his limitations can actually work off ball.
Also while RJ is a bad-mediocre 3P shooter, Derozan is just bad.
To run this down, RJ is pretty easy to shut down in the playoffs, however if he's your 4th option then he actually becomes an asset.
Tbh his strengths are kind of the same with Barnes where if he gets a head of steam, he's difficult to stop.
The irony to all this is if RJ improves his defence and keeps his efficiency close to 60% (say around 58% TS) to the point other teams may want him, we might not want to trade him unless something you can't pass up happens.
RJ as your 4th option is fine by me, I just dont want him being an integral part of the offence as his game style is unreliable and easy to shut down.
When I talk about the similarity of him and D, it's not strictly skill set, partially so, but overall the impact he has on the game feels "unsubstantial". Like yeah, the opposing team says " let him get his", focus on the rest of the team and you'll likely win. The more varied his game becomes, the less that is true, but for now I think it is.
I'd be happy with him being the "nothing else is working, throw it to RJ" guy, but I don't think he should be a major feature of the offence.
