Moderators: bwgood77, lilfishi22, Qwigglez
JoRain wrote:JMac1 wrote:One more thing....I got a 1:15 meeting at Talking Stick for a tour and to pick up my season tix.
Four reasons..Josh Devin Chriss and Bender.
no Ulis and DJJ ?
Anyways, they wanted too much for the Yellow Section. I'll wait on the create your own package deals in August.
Villalobos wrote:IMO, Jimmy Butler is a better comp and more realistic ceiling for Josh than guys like Giannis, Kawhi etc. Both are super competitive, have mediocre wingspans and questionable jumpshots.
Josh, while a good athlete, isn't the physical specimen that those other guys are. They have a ridiculous length advantage that helps so much with defense and getting to and finishing at the rim.
Sreister wrote:Catching up on what we seem to be talking about now, I noticed a lot of people having concerns over TJ and being bumped to the bench and I wanted to give my two cents.
The way we seem to talk, is that our roster is set, with Bled/Book/Warren/Chriss/Chandler, or some variation, and that putting JJ in the starting line up is some sort of disrespect to how amazing TJ is. Can we be real? We are a team that had the 2nd worst record in the league, and we're worried about having too much talent at any one position? We need all the help we can get, and I can't speak for is JJ is that guy or not, but let's cool it on having a roster that's too talented to change. TJ isn't above being benched, I don't think anyone is, to be honest (maybe Book). TJ will be fine, if his ego is that hurt then maybe we don't want him. I'm not saying we need to promise JJ a spot, but I do think they should battle for it.
TJ is a fine player, but still unproven. Physical health, as well as mental health (he seemed to not be himself after he got back, not that he has some sort of mental illness) all point to him not being our locked in SF right now.
My whole rant here is that we aren't good enough to be concerned about having too much talent to bench. I'm fine with either of them starting, because neither has shown they could start for a majority of teams in the NBA. Yet.
WeekapaugGroove wrote:I kind of like the Stephen Jackson comp for JJ. Good wing defender, good slasher, good creator for a wing, not the best 3pt shooter but a guy willing to take a big shot, and a guy who plays with some fire and swagger to his game.
I know some might think this comp is a slight on JJ but prime Stephen Jackson was a hell of a player.
Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app
carey wrote:It is 2-time, every time.
Zelaznyrules wrote:Sreister wrote:Catching up on what we seem to be talking about now, I noticed a lot of people having concerns over TJ and being bumped to the bench and I wanted to give my two cents.
The way we seem to talk, is that our roster is set, with Bled/Book/Warren/Chriss/Chandler, or some variation, and that putting JJ in the starting line up is some sort of disrespect to how amazing TJ is. Can we be real? We are a team that had the 2nd worst record in the league, and we're worried about having too much talent at any one position? We need all the help we can get, and I can't speak for is JJ is that guy or not, but let's cool it on having a roster that's too talented to change. TJ isn't above being benched, I don't think anyone is, to be honest (maybe Book). TJ will be fine, if his ego is that hurt then maybe we don't want him. I'm not saying we need to promise JJ a spot, but I do think they should battle for it.
TJ is a fine player, but still unproven. Physical health, as well as mental health (he seemed to not be himself after he got back, not that he has some sort of mental illness) all point to him not being our locked in SF right now.
My whole rant here is that we aren't good enough to be concerned about having too much talent to bench. I'm fine with either of them starting, because neither has shown they could start for a majority of teams in the NBA. Yet.
Do you think good teams get ahead by promising starting spots to untested rookies? I ask because that idea is what's sparking much of this conversation. Warren, when healthy, played very well last season. Too well to be dismissed to a backup role simply because we have a highly regarded rookie coming in. If Jackson beats him out, all but maybe one fan here will be thrilled. But I think it's all moot, I highly doubt we promised Jackson anything more than a chance to earn major minutes. And if Jackson playing major minutes is what's best for this team, most of us are very much in favor of it - whether it cost TJ minutes or not.
Frank Lee wrote:JMac1 wrote:Diss those who deserve to be dissed. A 2nd year 20 year old......as if he is a finished product? slow your roll.Frank Lee wrote:You seem to be the chief whiner here... dont try to turn it around like some are bad fans for commenting on fact/obvious.... Booker either needs to shoot better or take fewer, better shots.... isn't that how you improve shooting %%?
Dare anyone diss the 'Favorite Son' .... blasphemy. oh my....
You used a negative label on Booker "Sir-Chuck-A-Lot." That's not good. But you go ahead and spin it buddy. Placing negative terms to describe, IMO, a good player that we are damn fortunate to have, is counter-productive.
We know what the 20 yr old needs to do, and I expect that to come with age and better players. I hear about is deficiencies ad nausem, and Guess what? the season is over; So, to talk about what he needs to improve on in a negative manner when he can't until next season, is growing tired and old. That's what is known as whining or complaining. To place a negative label on the best thing this franchise has had going for it in some time, is just plain weak and miserable.
Counterproductive to what ??? Your happy reading? You are full of it dude. Just deal with it. Not everyone sleeps in purple/orange underwear. Booker has been anointed, leave it at that. The spin says he is our next all star. He has been awarded the title of 'Face' . We get all that. That doesn't change his stats. The dude had the greenest of greens last year... largely due to the lack of talent around him.... due to the lack of any offensive system to play in... so be it. He has the propensity to shoot shoot and shoot. Dare I say chuck ? whoopteedo. Nobody is doubting his role, nor his talent. I doubt we see a regression in those efficiency stats.
BTW.... you are exaggerating the level of criticism ... ad nauseum ??? really ? Who is complaining... who is whining ?.... You my sensitive friend.
RunDogGun wrote:I'm not sure what happened to Myagi's post about Kobe vs Booker second year stats, but shouldn't GMAT's argument also work in Booker's favor being on a team where you come off the bench, not have the best defenders on you at all times, often facing weaker opponents, having one of the best centers in the league taking up a team's game plan on defense?
I mean for Booker's 70 point game, he had to be Boston's number one focus defensively.
carey wrote:It is 2-time, every time.
1UPZ wrote:Villalobos wrote:IMO, Jimmy Butler is a better comp and more realistic ceiling for Josh than guys like Giannis, Kawhi etc. Both are super competitive, have mediocre wingspans and questionable jumpshots.
Josh, while a good athlete, isn't the physical specimen that those other guys are. They have a ridiculous length advantage that helps so much with defense and getting to and finishing at the rim.
Josh Jackson is in the same mold as Iguadala, Butler and even Paul George.... all have average to not-so-great wingspan/lengths, Iggy having the best measurements for his height.
Iguadala, 6'5 without shoes, 6'11 wingspan
Butler, 6'6 without shoes, 6'8 wingspan
George, 6'7 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
*Jackson, 6'6 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
jcsunsfan wrote:1UPZ wrote:Villalobos wrote:IMO, Jimmy Butler is a better comp and more realistic ceiling for Josh than guys like Giannis, Kawhi etc. Both are super competitive, have mediocre wingspans and questionable jumpshots.
Josh, while a good athlete, isn't the physical specimen that those other guys are. They have a ridiculous length advantage that helps so much with defense and getting to and finishing at the rim.
Josh Jackson is in the same mold as Iguadala, Butler and even Paul George.... all have average to not-so-great wingspan/lengths, Iggy having the best measurements for his height.
Iguadala, 6'5 without shoes, 6'11 wingspan
Butler, 6'6 without shoes, 6'8 wingspan
George, 6'7 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
*Jackson, 6'6 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
Jackson is 6-7 without shoes. Don't rob him of an inch. If you count the hair, he is 6-10.
NTB wrote:RunDogGun wrote:I'm not sure what happened to Myagi's post about Kobe vs Booker second year stats, but shouldn't GMAT's argument also work in Booker's favor being on a team where you come off the bench, not have the best defenders on you at all times, often facing weaker opponents, having one of the best centers in the league taking up a team's game plan on defense?
I mean for Booker's 70 point game, he had to be Boston's number one focus defensively.
He moved those messages to Devin Booker thread.
jcsunsfan wrote:Jackson is 6-7 without shoes. Don't rob him of an inch. If you count the hair, he is 6-10.
jcsunsfan wrote:1UPZ wrote:Villalobos wrote:IMO, Jimmy Butler is a better comp and more realistic ceiling for Josh than guys like Giannis, Kawhi etc. Both are super competitive, have mediocre wingspans and questionable jumpshots.
Josh, while a good athlete, isn't the physical specimen that those other guys are. They have a ridiculous length advantage that helps so much with defense and getting to and finishing at the rim.
Josh Jackson is in the same mold as Iguadala, Butler and even Paul George.... all have average to not-so-great wingspan/lengths, Iggy having the best measurements for his height.
Iguadala, 6'5 without shoes, 6'11 wingspan
Butler, 6'6 without shoes, 6'8 wingspan
George, 6'7 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
*Jackson, 6'6 without shoes, 6'10 wingspan
Jackson is 6-7 without shoes. Don't rob him of an inch. If you count the hair, he is 6-10.
