Player of the Day: Andre Roberson

[slick_watts]

So yeah, most of those are big guys. The wings are light years ahead of Roberson offensively ( Harper, Marion, bowen). Also, most you listed, bigs but still, are before handchecking on D became illegal, which makes perimeter D alot harder and almost impossible against star players (see James harden averaging 34ppg against roberson).

harper and marion were not 'light years' ahead of roberson offensively the years they won titles in LA and dallas.

your narrow view of perimeter defense, informed by your method of valuing it (player x scored 34 points against player y) is really shocking considering your claims that you coach basketball. andre roberson's impact on defense goes a lot farther than just limiting what his direct counterpart is doing (which he does at an elite level, relative to the average defensive player).

Despite what you 'suspect', maybe it's just that NBA wings are expected to be able to dribble a ball and have good enough shooting to actualy get the respect of being guarded. This isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Due to rule changes (no hands on D), the game evolving, and it being set up to Open the floor more, perimeter guys need to be able to shoot to play close to 30mpg. Otherwise they play 15, as in my examples of NBA champs in the modern league. I suspect you are grasping at straws here, as your point is just not applicable to this situation.

i just don't agree with this assessment. actually, i think it has gone the other direction. with big men shooting more frequently from three point range and the proliferation of horns like sets etc. there is much more room for perimeter defensive specialists than there was in the past. the proof is in the pudding here with andre roberson, who has been a part of elite offensive units throughout his career in spite of his limitations offensively. mostly because the thunder had bigs to stretch the floor (ibaka, durant) on the court with him at the same time.

the things that you say probably make a lot of sense to you. but it's not supported by anything concrete. we have some data on how our team performed with andre roberson out of the starting lineup and a player who could shoot and dribble replacing him (dion waiters). even though there was a slight uptick in offense, there was a much larger dropoff on defense. the roberson starters were superior.

this experiment should have ended this nonsense from people like you. but then the conference finals against gsw happened and somehow you made it about roberson, despite the fact that he was one of the linchpins of our 3-1 advantage in the first place.

then the playoffs last year happened, a playoffs where roberson led all players in DBPM. the defense was 28 points per 100 possessions worse with him out. did he hurt the offense? sure. but so did adams, so did anyone not named russell westbrook in that series. roberson had one of the best defensive series of any thunder wing but you can't see past 'james harden 34 points a game' or whatever reductive nonsense you employ to discredit him.

frankly, it's unfathomable to me that you watch the games with anything but the most basic, emotional level of attention. i doubt for a minute that you spend any time re-watching portions of games you've seen to better inform your opinions. all of which you would need to do for your 'eye test' approach to these discussion to have any serious merit.

[hardenASG13]

So yeah, most of those are big guys. The wings are light years ahead of Roberson offensively ( Harper, Marion, bowen). Also, most you listed, bigs but still, are before handchecking on D became illegal, which makes perimeter D alot harder and almost impossible against star players (see James harden averaging 34ppg against roberson).

harper and marion were not 'light years' ahead of roberson offensively the years they won titles in LA and dallas.

your narrow view of perimeter defense, informed by your method of valuing it (player x scored 34 points against player y) is really shocking considering your claims that you coach basketball. andre roberson's impact on defense goes a lot farther than just limiting what his direct counterpart is doing (which he does at an elite level, relative to the average defensive player).

Despite what you 'suspect', maybe it's just that NBA wings are expected to be able to dribble a ball and have good enough shooting to actualy get the respect of being guarded. This isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Due to rule changes (no hands on D), the game evolving, and it being set up to Open the floor more, perimeter guys need to be able to shoot to play close to 30mpg. Otherwise they play 15, as in my examples of NBA champs in the modern league. I suspect you are grasping at straws here, as your point is just not applicable to this situation.

i just don't agree with this assessment. actually, i think it has gone the other direction. with big men shooting more frequently from three point range and the proliferation of horns like sets etc. there is much more room for perimeter defensive specialists than there was in the past. the proof is in the pudding here with andre roberson, who has been a part of elite offensive units throughout his career in spite of his limitations offensively. mostly because the thunder had bigs to stretch the floor (ibaka, durant) on the court with him at the same time.

the things that you say probably make a lot of sense to you. but it's not supported by anything concrete. we have some data on how our team performed with andre roberson out of the starting lineup and a player who could shoot and dribble replacing him (dion waiters). even though there was a slight uptick in offense, there was a much larger dropoff on defense. the roberson starters were superior.

this experiment should have ended this nonsense from people like you. but then the conference finals against gsw happened and somehow you made it about roberson, despite the fact that he was one of the linchpins of our 3-1 advantage in the first place.

then the playoffs last year happened, a playoffs where roberson led all players in DBPM. the defense was 28 points per 100 possessions worse with him out. did he hurt the offense? sure. but so did adams, so did anyone not named russell westbrook in that series. roberson had one of the best defensive series of any thunder wing but you can't see past 'james harden 34 points a game' or whatever reductive nonsense you employ to discredit him.

frankly, it's unfathomable to me that you watch the games with anything but the most basic, emotional level of attention. i doubt for a minute that you spend any time re-watching portions of games you've seen to better inform your opinions. all of which you would need to do for your 'eye test' approach to these discussion to have any serious merit.

Sure they were. They certainly weren't being left completely wide open.

Also really, come on now. Of course it's not a direct correlation of how many points the opposing player averages (although 34 is a ton), but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. That, is the point.

Okc played their best ball of the season in the playoffs that year, when waiters finally came around.

Lastly, for someone who presents to be the smartest man in the room at all times (defense wins championships! I use CARMELO stats so they are the best!), I don't see how you can honestly think Roberson being on the floor contributes to an elite offense, at all. The numbers saying he does clearly are invalid in supporting this notion. What did/does he do to elevate an offense? How many minutes do you think Roberson should play on this roster out of curiosity?

[slick_watts]

Also really, come on now. Of course it's not a direct correlation of how many points the opposing player averages (although 34 is a ton), but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. That, is the point.

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.

Okc played their best ball of the season in the playoffs that year, when waiters finally came around.

waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.

Lastly, for someone who presents to be the smartest man in the room at all times (defense wins championships! I use CARMELO stats so they are the best!)

nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.

I don't see how you can honestly think Roberson being on the floor contributes to an elite offense, at all. The numbers saying he does clearly are invalid in supporting this notion. What did/does he do to elevate an offense? How many minutes do you think Roberson should play on this roster out of curiosity?

this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

[RalphSampsonJr]

Also really, come on now. Of course it's not a direct correlation of how many points the opposing player averages (although 34 is a ton), but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. That, is the point.

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.

Okc played their best ball of the season in the playoffs that year, when waiters finally came around.

waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.

Lastly, for someone who presents to be the smartest man in the room at all times (defense wins championships! I use CARMELO stats so they are the best!)

nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.

I don't see how you can honestly think Roberson being on the floor contributes to an elite offense, at all. The numbers saying he does clearly are invalid in supporting this notion. What did/does he do to elevate an offense? How many minutes do you think Roberson should play on this roster out of curiosity?

this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

[hardenASG13]

Also really, come on now. Of course it's not a direct correlation of how many points the opposing player averages (although 34 is a ton), but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. That, is the point.

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.

Okc played their best ball of the season in the playoffs that year, when waiters finally came around.

waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.

Lastly, for someone who presents to be the smartest man in the room at all times (defense wins championships! I use CARMELO stats so they are the best!)

nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.

I don't see how you can honestly think Roberson being on the floor contributes to an elite offense, at all. The numbers saying he does clearly are invalid in supporting this notion. What did/does he do to elevate an offense? How many minutes do you think Roberson should play on this roster out of curiosity?

this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

Talking about the defense on harden, chief. So he's been present in good lineups.....what is that saying? That they can get by with him? Why you or any of the other fans are happy with a guy you can get by with, on a title contending team, is just crazy to me. Basically, your point is he's been a part of them but you acknowledge he hasn't contributed to it and has held them back? Cool.

Also waiters played alot better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. He was huge in those playoffs, though he stunk all RS for the most part. But your right, I don't watch games because you say i don't, and I don't pay attention to anything but the ball (your go to when evidence you don't like.....like showing how title teams in the modern NBA have used their defensive wings In a 15mpg role, or less, is presented.)

Again I'll ask how many minutes do you think Roberson should be playing on this team? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

[hardenASG13]

Also really, come on now. Of course it's not a direct correlation of how many points the opposing player averages (although 34 is a ton), but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. That, is the point.

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.

Okc played their best ball of the season in the playoffs that year, when waiters finally came around.

waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.

Lastly, for someone who presents to be the smartest man in the room at all times (defense wins championships! I use CARMELO stats so they are the best!)

nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.

I don't see how you can honestly think Roberson being on the floor contributes to an elite offense, at all. The numbers saying he does clearly are invalid in supporting this notion. What did/does he do to elevate an offense? How many minutes do you think Roberson should play on this roster out of curiosity?

this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

Umm according to bondom antagonizing and personal attacks are against board rules......but if we're taking shots, way to be a follower/tag along to people on a message board, in an effort (I'm assuming) for social approval

I hope your a teenager, not a grown man

[Andre Roberstan]

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.



waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.



nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.



this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

Umm according to bondom antagonizing and personal attacks are against board rules......but if we're taking shots, way to be a follower/tag along to people on a message board, in an effort (I'm assuming) for social approval

I hope your a teenager, not a grown man

They are against board rules. If you have a point to make, Ralph, make it. slick and HASG going back and forth with each other is fine, but jumping on and cheerleading without contributing to the discussion helps no one.

[slick_watts]

Talking about the defense on harden, chief.

So he's been present in good lineups.....what is that saying?

it's saying that andre roberson's net impact is likely a positive one. did you see what i posted about the starters with waiters (a player you profess to enjoy) v. the starters with roberson? it's a clear distinction.

Basically, your point is he's been a part of them but you acknowledge he hasn't contributed to it and has held them back? Cool.

no, no. that's not the point. once again, you are misconstruing what i said! and it's actually fascinating.

i said: andre roberson is present in elite offensive lineups, despite his limitations.
you claim i said: andre roberson contributes to elite offensive lineups.
i said: andre roberson is present in elite offensive lineups, despite his limitations.
you claim i said: you acknowledged he hasn't contributed to it and has held them back

this is almost comical, and a little sad if you are not doing this on purpose.

andre roberson's net impact is positive! the vast majority of that positive impact is on the team's defense. which he does contribute to, evidenced by the on / off splits in the houston series. a series during which you lambasted andre roberson for not having an impact.

Also waiters played alot better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. He was huge in those playoffs

you're pushing it.

But your right, I don't watch games because you say i don't

i think you watch the games, but only at sort of a basic fan, emotionally tinged level. you're not analyzing anything, you don't re-visit anything. which is fine!

Again I'll ask how many minutes do you think Roberson should be playing on this team?

2000+

[hardenASG13]

Talking about the defense on harden, chief.

So he's been present in good lineups.....what is that saying?

it's saying that andre roberson's net impact is likely a positive one. did you see what i posted about the starters with waiters (a player you profess to enjoy) v. the starters with roberson? it's a clear distinction.

Basically, your point is he's been a part of them but you acknowledge he hasn't contributed to it and has held them back? Cool.

no, no. that's not the point. once again, you are misconstruing what i said! and it's actually fascinating.

i said: andre roberson is present in elite offensive lineups, despite his limitations.
you claim i said: andre roberson contributes to elite offensive lineups.
i said: andre roberson is present in elite offensive lineups, despite his limitations.
you claim i said: you acknowledged he hasn't contributed to it and has held them back

this is almost comical, and a little sad if you are not doing this on purpose.

andre roberson's net impact is positive! the vast majority of that positive impact is on the team's defense. which he does contribute to, evidenced by the on / off splits in the houston series. a series during which you lambasted andre roberson for not having an impact.

Also waiters played alot better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. He was huge in those playoffs

you're pushing it.

But your right, I don't watch games because you say i don't

i think you watch the games, but only at sort of a basic fan, emotionally tinged level. you're not analyzing anything, you don't re-visit anything. which is fine!

Again I'll ask how many minutes do you think Roberson should be playing on this team?

2000+

So 25 mpg?

Also I hated waiters, but the team peaked with him playing good ball.

I think you are confused at my hatred of Roberson. You have presented info on how he's a net positive. My argument is that there have been no reasons, and still aren't, why he was the best option. My point is he should be replaced with someone who is competent defensively, and average on offense . Those players exist, and are are always available, and would be more of a net positive in my opinion. I don't accept Roberson as being what the team deserves. Neither did Durant, clearly.

Now It seems presti has finally come to this realization, first trying to replace him with oladipo at SG, and now bringing in offensive firepower, which I'm saying, will make this team so good offensively they won't require a defensive specialist as much to keep up. So you think he should play 25mpg(2000/82)?

[slick_watts]

My argument is that there have been no reasons, and still aren't, why he was the best option.

best option on the team? i think he has clearly demonstrated that this is the case. best option in the nba? well, uh, duh. there are better shooting guards than andre roberson!

My point is he should be replaced with someone who is competent defensively, and average on offense . Those players exist, and are are always available, and would be more of a net positive in my opinion.

players such as?

just for fun, here are the SG in the NBA who ranked in the Top 25 in RPM last season:

james harden
manu ginobili
klay thompson
bradley beal
lou williams
victor oladipo
vince carter
kyle anderson
danny green
andre roberson
c.j. mccollum
eric gordon
nicolas batum
tim hardaway jr.
wayne ellington
nick young
seth curry
gary harris
tyler johnson
jason terry
wesley matthews
demar derozan
tony allen
dion waiters
justin holiday

which of these players were available for andre roberson? you may disagree about their inclusion here, but aside from perhaps seth curry, none of them would have been available to us, especially at the bargain deal we got roberson on this summer.

who are these two-way shooting guards hanging off the limbs of trees that you want us to acquire? i'm 100% with you that if we can upgrade the position, we should. but where is the upgrade?

I don't accept Roberson as being what the team deserves. Neither did Durant, clearly.

haha what

Now It seems presti has finally come to this realization, first trying to replace him with oladipo at SG, and now bringing in offensive firepower, which I'm saying, will make this team so good offensively they won't require a defensive specialist as much to keep up. So you think he should play 25mpg(2000/82)?

i guess that realization is why he chose to re-sign andre roberson to a long term contract!

[RalphSampsonJr]

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

Umm according to bondom antagonizing and personal attacks are against board rules......but if we're taking shots, way to be a follower/tag along to people on a message board, in an effort (I'm assuming) for social approval

I hope your a teenager, not a grown man

They are against board rules. If you have a point to make, Ralph, make it. slick and HASG going back and forth with each other is fine, but jumping on and cheerleading without contributing to the discussion helps no one.

Apologies.. just find this arguement extremely redundant yet it seems to be brought up by the same two people every chance they get

[hardenASG13]

My argument is that there have been no reasons, and still aren't, why he was the best option.

best option on the team? i think he has clearly demonstrated that this is the case. best option in the nba? well, uh, duh. there are better shooting guards than andre roberson!

My point is he should be replaced with someone who is competent defensively, and average on offense . Those players exist, and are are always available, and would be more of a net positive in my opinion.

players such as?

just for fun, here are the SG in the NBA who ranked in the Top 25 in RPM last season:

james harden
manu ginobili
klay thompson
bradley beal
lou williams
victor oladipo
vince carter
kyle anderson
danny green
andre roberson
c.j. mccollum
eric gordon
nicolas batum
tim hardaway jr.
wayne ellington
nick young
seth curry
gary harris
tyler johnson
jason terry
wesley matthews
demar derozan
tony allen
dion waiters
justin holiday

which of these players were available for andre roberson? you may disagree about their inclusion here, but aside from perhaps seth curry, none of them would have been available to us, especially at the bargain deal we got roberson on this summer.

who are these two-way shooting guards hanging off the limbs of trees that you want us to acquire? i'm 100% with you that if we can upgrade the position, we should. but where is the upgrade?

I don't accept Roberson as being what the team deserves. Neither did Durant, clearly.

haha what

Now It seems presti has finally come to this realization, first trying to replace him with oladipo at SG, and now bringing in offensive firepower, which I'm saying, will make this team so good offensively they won't require a defensive specialist as much to keep up. So you think he should play 25mpg(2000/82)?

i guess that realization is why he chose to re-sign andre roberson to a long term contract!

Call him a shooting guard if you want.....he certainly isn't a shooter, and doesn't handle the ball or create for anyone. Not sure what to call him offensively, really. Defensively, he guards a variety of players. I'll say he's a wing. That includes 2s and 3s, which would double that list.

He resigned him before trading for melo. I think melos ability to play the 3 and 4, and George's ability to play the 2 and 3, can/should limit his minutes alot more than the 30 from last year. There's no reason they can't play russ/george/melo/patterson/adams for long stretches. Same with abrines or grant in place of patterson, which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D), with George, melo and Adams. 25-30mpg is too much with this roster, it's not Russ and scrubs anymore.

[RalphSampsonJr]

defense with andre roberson in the game v. houston: 103.3pp100 allowed
defense with andre roberson out of the game v. houston: 131.1pp100 allowed

this is a small sample and shouldn't be taken at face value no matter what your position is, but the audacious inaccuracy of your statement above but the defense wasn't good, with or without him. compels me to post those numbers.

this isn't some made up subjective take, this is what actually happened in the games. the results. that you can sit there and type such a blatantly false statement further illustrates your lack of attention, and the bias you present in your eye test analyses.



waiters scored slightly more efficiently in the playoffs but was still the same scrub. yes the thunder played the best basketball of the season in the playoffs. that's true. singling out dion waiters for this achievement is typical baloney from you.



nothing i've posted here is private or unavailable to you, as well. i've posted links aplenty for you in the past, including links to video clips of actual plays supporting positions i've debated. i'm sure you've looked at none of them, not even the actual 'eye test' evidence. i recall you once even stating that you didn't want to put in the effort since this is just a basketball board.



this is what i mean by lack of attention. i never said, anywhere, that andre roberson contributes to an elite offense. what was said is that andre roberson has been present in lineups that maintained an elite offense, in spite of his limitations. just like the basketball you watch, you read my posts and react emotionally to what you want to believe was written-- instead of taking a moment to think about it before you reply.

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

Umm according to bondom antagonizing and personal attacks are against board rules......but if we're taking shots, way to be a follower/tag along to people on a message board, in an effort (I'm assuming) for social approval

I hope your a teenager, not a grown man

I'm not tagging along at all. Roberson is one of my favourite players and have been trying to explain what he does on the court to anyone that will listen.
It just gets very hard these days as people don't look at it the same way they do offense. People like watching the ball go in the basket but don't appreciate what else goes on on the court.

People like yourself don't have this appreciation for defense and it seems to cause the same arguement when the chance presents itself.

Robes will start. He will play 25-30 minutes a night.
I will sit and marvel at what he brings to the thunder this season. You can sit there and think you know more than ALL of the thunder coaching staff but it won't chance the fact

[Kizz Fastfists]

Now It seems presti has finally come to this realization, first trying to replace him with oladipo at SG, and now bringing in offensive firepower, which I'm saying, will make this team so good offensively they won't require a defensive specialist as much to keep up. So you think he should play 25mpg(2000/82)?

Oladipo only started because kd left. Oladipo was supposed to be the 6th man, unless you want to call Presti a liar, and Roberson was always going to be a starter.

[slick_watts]

Call him a shooting guard if you want.....

That includes 2s and 3s, which would double that list

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

pick out the two-way 'wings' that were available to us.

He resigned him before trading for melo. I think melos ability to play the 3 and 4, and George's ability to play the 2 and 3

george hasn't played one minute of SG since before his injury, and hasn't played any significant minutes there since his sophomore season. carmelo anthony's best results have come in small ball lineups. why would we pigeon hole these two guys? so that we can play patrick patterson at pf?

Same with abrines or grant in place of patterson, which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D),

are you seriously suggesting replacing andre roberson with alex abrines or jerami grant in the starting lineup?

[Kizz Fastfists]

There's no reason they can't play russ/george/melo/patterson/adams for long stretches. Same with abrines or grant in place of patterson, which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D), with George, melo and Adams. 25-30mpg is too much with this roster, it's not Russ and scrubs anymore.

As long as winning the scoreboard does not qualify as a reason you are completely correct. Remember that least season the reason everyone knew Cleveland couldn't win was because of their DEFENSE. If Cleveland had somehow beat GS they would have been the worst defensive to win a championship. Utah, who had a weak offense last season, would not have been breaking a record by winning a championship. Without Roberson OKC would be trying to do what Cleveland, and every other similar team, has failed to do. You don't win a championship with a mediocre defense. If you do not want OKC to win a championship then your desire to see them go all offense is completely understandable. Just be honest and say you do not want OKC to win and you want them to be what you find most entertaining.

[RalphSampsonJr]

There's no reason they can't play russ/george/melo/patterson/adams for long stretches. Same with abrines or grant in place of patterson, which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D), with George, melo and Adams. 25-30mpg is too much with this roster, it's not Russ and scrubs anymore.

As long as winning the scoreboard does not qualify as a reason you are completely correct. Remember that least season the reason everyone knew Cleveland couldn't win was because of their DEFENSE. If Cleveland had somehow beat GS they would have been the worst defensive to win a championship. Utah, who had a weak offense last season, would not have been breaking a record by winning a championship. Without Roberson OKC would be trying to do what Cleveland, and every other similar team, has failed to do. You don't win a championship with a mediocre defense. If you do not want OKC to win a championship then your desire to see them go all offense is completely understandable. Just be honest and say you do not want OKC to win and you want them to be what you find most entertaining.

Utah last year are a prime example of defense making a team successful.
Gobert has gone from being a mid level center last year to a top 3 center this year solely because of his defense.
His raw numbers didn't jump up too significantly, yet he has now become 2nd team all NBA. this is to do with his crazy value on his teams DEFENSE.

[hardenASG13]

Stop it you're embarrassing the man! Nah actually keep doin it!

Umm according to bondom antagonizing and personal attacks are against board rules......but if we're taking shots, way to be a follower/tag along to people on a message board, in an effort (I'm assuming) for social approval

I hope your a teenager, not a grown man

I'm not tagging along at all. Roberson is one of my favourite players and have been trying to explain what he does on the court to anyone that will listen.
It just gets very hard these days as people don't look at it the same way they do offense. People like watching the ball go in the basket but don't appreciate what else goes on on the court.

People like yourself don't have this appreciation for defense and it seems to cause the same arguement when the chance presents itself.

Robes will start. He will play 25-30 minutes a night.
I will sit and marvel at what he brings to the thunder this season. You can sit there and think you know more than ALL of the thunder coaching staff but it won't chance the fact

1. You most certainly were tagging along, that's all your post was. You've done it several times since joining.

2. I appreciate defense, just not from a player, in the best league in the world, who can't play any offense on the perimeter, which is necessary in the game today. If he didn't force them to play 4 on 5 offensively I'd love him. His defense is great. But not so great where he plays 30mpg, or close to it. That's just not fair to the offense, and not sustainable at the championship level. The evidence, as I presented, is in champions over the last decade.

[hardenASG13]

Call him a shooting guard if you want.....

That includes 2s and 3s, which would double that list

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM

pick out the two-way 'wings' that were available to us.

He resigned him before trading for melo. I think melos ability to play the 3 and 4, and George's ability to play the 2 and 3

george hasn't played one minute of SG since before his injury, and hasn't played any significant minutes there since his sophomore season. carmelo anthony's best results have come in small ball lineups. why would we pigeon hole these two guys? so that we can play patrick patterson at pf?

Same with abrines or grant in place of patterson, which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D),

are you seriously suggesting replacing andre roberson with alex abrines or jerami grant in the starting lineup?

1. I know he's listed at sg.....he can't shoot or dribble tho. What does he do offensively like a sg?

2. There's no way to know who was available.....they just traded sabonis, oladipo, kanter and Doug for Carmel and PG tho. Things happen.

3. He hasn't, doesn't mean he can't. Put 5 guys with size and athleticsm out there, they will defend if they want to win. Don't think PG can/would play guard alongside westbrook?

4. I never said starting lineup. Another instance of you pulling what you want from something instead of seeing the substance (see how lame of a reply that is?). But really, never said it.

[slick_watts]

1. I know he's listed at sg.....

great!

What does he do offensively like a sg?

sigh! i thought we were having a breakthrough. positional archetypes are that important to you? didn't you just suggest paul george play a position he hasn't played in five seasons? andre roberson has been playing SG most of his nba career, to positive effect. he's a shooting guard whether your personal definition says so or not! sorry.

2. There's no way to know who was available.....they just traded sabonis, oladipo, kanter and Doug for Carmel and PG tho. Things happen.

you need to substantiate your claim. you claim that there are players 'out there' who could give us offense and defense at shooting guard. who are they? how do we get them? here's what you said:

My point is he should be replaced with someone who is competent defensively, and average on offense . Those players exist, and are are always available

i agree wholeheartedly with you if there was an opportunity to upgrade starting shooting guard with a better player than andre roberson, then that should have been pursued. certainly if you've put any thought into these posts you have some examples for us...? you say they are always available. who are they?

3. He hasn't, doesn't mean he can't. Put 5 guys with size and athleticsm out there, they will defend if they want to win. Don't think PG can/would play guard alongside westbrook?

or you could, i dunno, put the guy out there who makes our defense good. instead of putting others in positions they are less effective playing. tough decision.

did you know paul george hasn't played SG much since his 2nd season? i doubt you did. you acknowledge the 'changing nba' but want to put a big wing like george at SG? i think you're confused.

4. I never said starting lineup. Another instance of you pulling what you want from something instead of seeing the substance (see how lame of a reply that is?). But really, never said it.

you said:which would have abrines and Westbrook in the backcourt (Westbrook needs to play some D), with George, melo and Adams.

abrines with the rest of the starters except roberson sounds like the starting lineup with abrines to me, doesn't it?