Wall and Crawford made NBA history. Congrats to them & EG!

[Dat2U]

CCJ, I cant be any more sure of John Wall being better than Kyrie Irving than you could be sure your boy DeMarcus Cousins is more of a winner than current Kentucky C Josh Harrellson.

[montestewart]

Wall and Cousins didn't win NCAAs. Neither did Duncan and Paul.

Curse of Le Demon Deacons?

[Dat2U]

I surmise that the reason Kentucky made it to the final four this time around is that Brandon Knight has a more reliable jumpshot than John Wall and more importantly, Josh Harrellson is a much better low post defender than DeMarcus Cousins.

[hands11]

I surmise that the reason Kentucky made it to the final four this time around is that Brandon Knight has a more reliable jumpshot than John Wall and more importantly, Josh Harrellson is a much better low post defender than DeMarcus Cousins.

That was a major fail that team didnt go farther. What was it, five first round pick came off that team. You have

John Wall #1
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Patrick Patterson #14
Eric Bledsoe #18
Daniel Orton #29

And you do make it to the final 4 ?

[Illuminaire]

To throw water on your fire CCJ, If Kyrie Irving is such a winner, why couldn't he stop Duke from getting absolutely slaughtered by Arizona this past weekend?

Did you see the Plumlee Bros. trying to guard Derrick Williams?

This is a great circular argument nobody can win. Wall and Cousins didn't win NCAAs. Neither did Duncan and Paul. But then I say, just because Irving didn't win NCAAs who says he can't eventually be a HOF player? Dat, how can you be sure Irving isn't a winner and more than Wall?

CCJ, Dat doesn't need to prove that. See, he wasn't really making the argument that tournament success = player success, you were. He and I were just poking holes in that by showing that there wasn't really a corolation that passed any kind of smell test.

Arguing the opposite way is just a fancy argument from silence. "Oh hey, we don't KNOW that Irving won't be great, so he could be great, right?"

While the possibility exists, that by no means makes it likely, nor does it mean we should base our team strategy around acquiring said player. In a game of poker, my king-high hand COULD win. Heck, it could win a massive pot and put all the other players out. That's a mathematical possibility.... but it's not a very good one, and if I go around sinking all my chips into hands like that I won't have any more of them to worry about in short order.


(A brief aside: I think you have a tendency to overfocus on the productive roleplayer. Your ability to identify them is astounding, and well worthy of applause. Productive roleplayers do not a great team make, though, not in and of themselves. There is no reason to break the bank for those kinds of players - they get undervalued and looked over every year. We can get them by other means than selling off potential difference makers. /end ramble)

[Illuminaire]

How about the line up and strategy I described ? It didn't involve trading Wall this year. Actually, he may never get moved if you follow up. Or he could later if you wanted. It is flexible.

I think Nate (or someone else) pointed out the issues with playing Wall and Irving together at the same time. It doesn't really take advantage of their collective talent, and it also takes time away from Crawford (who we need to develop).

Irving simply couldn't be the longterm solution as Wall's running mate, so we would just be looking to move him. If we were somehow dedicated to sucking next season too, then maybe that strategy works as a "bank and tank" combination platter. The less he looks like a good fit though, the more leverage other teams would have in trade scenarios, and in the end I'm not convinced the results would be satisfying even for the most patient fan.

I'd rather get someone we actually want to keep (plus some extra assets from trading back) this draft and spend the season developing team chemistry.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I surmise that the reason Kentucky made it to the final four this time around is that Brandon Knight has a more reliable jumpshot than John Wall and more importantly, Josh Harrellson is a much better low post defender than DeMarcus Cousins.

That was a major fail that team didnt go farther. What was it, five first round pick came off that team. You have

John Wall #1
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Patrick Patterson #14
Eric Bledsoe #18
Daniel Orton #29

And you do make it to the final 4 ?

Four freshmen were on that team. Da'Sean Butler was the clear emotional leader and a senior for West Virginia. Who of those KY five matched up with him defensively? Also, Devin Ebanks was a good enough defender to make the Lakers as a round two pick. Last, WVU did the one thing that neutralizes Wall. They controlled the tempo. Their game plan was to smother Cousins and let Wall and Bledsoe try to shoot over their length from outside, but to control the tempo and execute at the other.

I remember that game well. KY hit outside shots early and started jacking. Cousins got frustrated at not getting the ball and he started going one-on-one and turning it over. He had 5 TOs IIRC. The same guards that hit shots early missed a ton late. Calipari played the overrated one of the bunch, Orton.

That's how they loss. Looking back I think it was coaching and the matchup that beat them.

[hands11]

How about the line up and strategy I described ? It didn't involve trading Wall this year. Actually, he may never get moved if you follow up. Or he could later if you wanted. It is flexible.

I think Nate (or someone else) pointed out the issues with playing Wall and Irving together at the same time. It doesn't really take advantage of their collective talent, and it also takes time away from Crawford (who we need to develop).

Irving simply couldn't be the longterm solution as Wall's running mate, so we would just be looking to move him. If we were somehow dedicated to sucking next season too, then maybe that strategy works as a "bank and tank" combination platter. The less he looks like a good fit though, the more leverage other teams would have in trade scenarios, and in the end I'm not convinced the results would be satisfying even for the most patient fan.

I'd rather get someone we actually want to keep (plus some extra assets from trading back) this draft and spend the season developing team chemistry.

Valid argument I guess. But you make lots of assumptions that could easily go the other way. Bank and tank would be one way you could look at it but the team isn't likely to get great next year anyway.

First, those two wouldn't be running together as a primary line up. Wall and Nick would. Second, you are banking on Crawford more that I am ready to. He does some things well but he doesn't look like a starter to me. Third, Irving would be coming off the bench. As hard as Wall went the first half of the Utah game, I think it would have been a huge advantage to roll in Irving next along with Crawford just like Wall runs with Crawford. I think that works well. As for team knowing we need to move him lowering his value. I don't buy into that so much. If he is really good, teams will line up. And there is the chance it actually works well like a Dumars and Isiah combo. This team really lack pure outside shooting.

Wall/Nick 32 mins
Irving/Crawford 16 mins
That keeps everyone healthy during the season and you have injury protection.

But then also look at the whole roster I laid out if we go that direction.

The only downside I really think there is to the idea is how Wall would feel about it. But on the other side, they could probably teach each other things and both end up better for it.

Seems like you are dismissing the idea to easily.