PG Thread: Treyverson // Tank Victory

[3toheadmelo]

Good point. You prolly right.

i rather have KBD man. i don't care what anyone says. he is the same age as mikal. looks much more fluid than mikal, has more moves than mikal on offense. plus he actually looks bigger than mikal. he got those broad ass shoulders like bam.

a coupe days ago he had 24 points 14 rebounds 4 assists 4 blocks 2 steals in a double OT game, and won

Watch on YouTube

You know I fux with you on KBD. I am zeroed in on him with our Bulls pick.

But in comparison to Mikal I will say Mikal is more of a quicker twitch athlete than him. Mikal is more bouncy and explosive.

But yeah, KBD is longer, bigger frame, smoother, and more of a shot creator off the bounce.

I see Mikal as a SG/SF where KBD is more of a SF/PF.

For schits and giggles, imagine if we got them both!

every mock i've seen got him going in the 1st round

gun to my head im taking KBD over mikal

[Tron Carter]

The g league ain’t relevant in this, come on.

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something w
hen they show development and excel down there.

I think that's a false equivalency. You'd use player x doing poorly in the G-League against him because of how many players do well down there, even those who have no business being mentioned as potential NBA players, and the low talent level; you'd use player x doing well down there as having less meaning because of the poor talent level and the fact that players show out down there all the time if they are even slightly better than the average.

I think Burke can be a nice backup like Mecca says in that Napier role, but that's all I'm counting on. 115 total shots isn't something I'm holding as a large sample size either for total shots, let alone 28 total three point attempts. I think the deal the Knicks gave him was genius because it gives us another year to evaluate + the Knicks will have his bird rights so I disagree with people saying he's a bum or whatever, but, again, I'm not expecting a starter or someone who will produce nightly - I'm thinking scoring punch off the bench.

and that’s all that needs to be said. pump the breaks on the pg of the future. he ain’t that.

but he can start for this team, sure. we don’t have many options and we’re not trying to win games.

[2010]

The g league ain’t relevant in this, come on.

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something when they show development and excel down there.

Who holds g league production against players? Nobody because it’s irrelevant. Vander Blue was the G League MVP last season. This season he’s playing in Italy.

If the G League was irrelevant why does it exist? Why is the league investing resources into it? Why is the league legislating ways to facilitate further player development and call-up opportunities? Why are roster and contract rules being altered to allow for G League talent to be placed on NBA rosters (two-way contracts)? Why are more teams advocating for fleshing out player development departments with executive personnel? Why are more teams attempting to acquire their own G League affiliates as opposed to sharing G League affiliates or plucking from other franchises G League rosters?

You sound retotted man

[Tron Carter]

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something when they show development and excel down there.

Who holds g league production against players? Nobody because it’s irrelevant. Vander Blue was the G League MVP last season. This season he’s playing in Italy.

If the G League was irrelevant why does it exist? Why is the league investing resources into it? Why is the league legislating ways to facilitate further player development and call-ups opportunities? Why are roster and contract rules being altered allow for G League talent to be placed on NBA rosters (two-way contracts)? Why are more teams advocating for fleshing out player development departments with executive personnel? Why are more teams attempting to acquire their own G League affiliates as opposed to sharing G League affiliates or plucking from other franchises G League rosters?

You sound retotted man

I said g league production is irrelevant in your argument. Never said the league function had no purpose.

All this Burke hype got you hot and bothered huh? Caping for Trey Burke’s g-league production sheesh.

[Mecca]

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something w
hen they show development and excel down there.

I think that's a false equivalency. You'd use player x doing poorly in the G-League against him because of how many players do well down there, even those who have no business being mentioned as potential NBA players, and the low talent level; you'd use player x doing well down there as having less meaning because of the poor talent level and the fact that players show out down there all the time if they are even slightly better than the average.

I think Burke can be a nice backup like Mecca says in that Napier role, but that's all I'm counting on. 115 total shots isn't something I'm holding as a large sample size either for total shots, let alone 28 total three point attempts. I think the deal the Knicks gave him was genius because it gives us another year to evaluate + the Knicks will have his bird rights so I disagree with people saying he's a bum or whatever, but, again, I'm not expecting a starter or someone who will produce nightly - I'm thinking scoring punch off the bench.

and that’s all that needs to be said. pump the breaks on the pg of the future. he ain’t that.

but he can start for this team, sure. we don’t have many options and we’re not trying to win games.

You originally were treating Trey like he’s a bum though Tron... & he’s better than “the PG version of Beasley.”

Ideally he’s probably a 6th man, but I’m going to want him to continue to start this year and maybe even next considering we’ll be strapped financially and Frank plays best with him.

[2010]

The g league ain’t relevant in this, come on.

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something w
hen they show development and excel down there.

I think that's a false equivalency. You'd use player x doing poorly in the G-League against him because of how many players do well down there, even those who have no business being mentioned as potential NBA players, and the low talent level; you'd use player x doing well down there as having less meaning because of the poor talent level and the fact that players show out down there all the time if they are even slightly better than the average.

I think Burke can be a nice backup like Mecca says in that Napier role, but that's all I'm counting on. 115 total shots isn't something I'm holding as a large sample size either for total shots, let alone 28 total three point attempts. I think the deal the Knicks gave him was genius because it gives us another year to evaluate + the Knicks will have his bird rights so I disagree with people saying he's a bum or whatever, but, again, I'm not expecting a starter or someone who will produce nightly - I'm thinking scoring punch off the bench.

My point is G League statistics are not irrelevant when the player is projectable.

I am not EXPECTING Burke to be a starter either. But I damn sure am not ready to say he CANNOT.

He was a high lottery pick for a reason. He was a national player of the year candidate in college for a reason. Dude was on the NBA radar since middle school for a reason. He was never a scrub and he was never unskilled. He didn't succeed initially for different reasons.

[Tron Carter]

I think that's a false equivalency. You'd use player x doing poorly in the G-League against him because of how many players do well down there, even those who have no business being mentioned as potential NBA players, and the low talent level; you'd use player x doing well down there as having less meaning because of the poor talent level and the fact that players show out down there all the time if they are even slightly better than the average.

I think Burke can be a nice backup like Mecca says in that Napier role, but that's all I'm counting on. 115 total shots isn't something I'm holding as a large sample size either for total shots, let alone 28 total three point attempts. I think the deal the Knicks gave him was genius because it gives us another year to evaluate + the Knicks will have his bird rights so I disagree with people saying he's a bum or whatever, but, again, I'm not expecting a starter or someone who will produce nightly - I'm thinking scoring punch off the bench.

and that’s all that needs to be said. pump the breaks on the pg of the future. he ain’t that.

but he can start for this team, sure. we don’t have many options and we’re not trying to win games.

You originally were treating Trey like he’s a bum though Tron... & he’s better than “the PG version of Beasley.”

context is always lost here. if I’m comparing him to the vast majority of starters in this league he’s a bum. PG version Beasley ain’t a bad comp either. Both can put the ball in the hole. Neither are great three point shooters. Both suck at defense. That’s why we can sign them for vet minimum deals.

Never made that analogy though. At least I don’t remember making it, did you?

[thebuzzardman]

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something when they show development and excel down there.

Who holds g league production against players? Nobody because it’s irrelevant. Vander Blue was the G League MVP last season. This season he’s playing in Italy.

If the G League was irrelevant why does it exist? Why is the league investing resources into it? Why is the league legislating ways to facilitate further player development and call-ups opportunities? Why are roster and contract rules being altered allow for G League talent to be placed on NBA rosters (two-way contracts)? Why are more teams advocating for fleshing out player development departments with executive personnel? Why are more teams attempting to acquire their own G League affiliates as opposed to sharing G League affiliates or plucking from other franchises G League rosters?

You sound retotted man

Wait,so professional basketball leagues have value, as well as the NCAA? You mean like the one Frank played in? I'd bet your argument will somehow include that not counting.

[2010]

i rather have KBD man. i don't care what anyone says. he is the same age as mikal. looks much more fluid than mikal, has more moves than mikal on offense. plus he actually looks bigger than mikal. he got those broad ass shoulders like bam.

a coupe days ago he had 24 points 14 rebounds 4 assists 4 blocks 2 steals in a double OT game, and won

Watch on YouTube

You know I fux with you on KBD. I am zeroed in on him with our Bulls pick.

But in comparison to Mikal I will say Mikal is more of a quicker twitch athlete than him. Mikal is more bouncy and explosive.

But yeah, KBD is longer, bigger frame, smoother, and more of a shot creator off the bounce.

I see Mikal as a SG/SF where KBD is more of a SF/PF.

For schits and giggles, imagine if we got them both!

every mock i've seen got him going in the 1st round

gun to my head im taking KBD over mikal

I've seen him in the 2nd in several editions of mocks. But at the end of the day it doesn't mean anything cuz mocks get things wrong after the first 5 picks every year. The mocks are very hard to predict outside of the top consensus picks.

I'm not ready to go KBD over Mikal cuz I think KBD is more of a finished product. I view Mikal as a still developing late bloomer who may still have some noticeable upside.

[Mecca]

and that’s all that needs to be said. pump the breaks on the pg of the future. he ain’t that.

but he can start for this team, sure. we don’t have many options and we’re not trying to win games.

You originally were treating Trey like he’s a bum though Tron... & he’s better than “the PG version of Beasley.”

context is always lost here. if I’m comparing him to the vast majority of starters in this league he’s a bum. PG version Beasley ain’t a bad comp either. Both can put the ball in the hole. Neither are great three point shooters. Both suck at defense. That’s why we can sign them for vet minimum deals.

Never made that analogy though. At least I don’t remember making it, did you?

I’m sorry fam but your energy towards Trey was much different compared to these last few posts. You seemed to be much more down on him. You even said “end of bench” player.

[thebuzzardman]

I like Mikal Bridges because he reminds me of the SF version of Frank.

[Mecca]

I like Mikal Bridges because he reminds me of the SF version of Frank.

Both are glue players, correct. Mikal uses his body a lot more, though

[Tron Carter]

You originally were treating Trey like he’s a bum though Tron... & he’s better than “the PG version of Beasley.”

context is always lost here. if I’m comparing him to the vast majority of starters in this league he’s a bum. PG version Beasley ain’t a bad comp either. Both can put the ball in the hole. Neither are great three point shooters. Both suck at defense. That’s why we can sign them for vet minimum deals.

Never made that analogy though. At least I don’t remember making it, did you?

I’m sorry fam but your energy towards Trey was much different compared to these last few posts. You seemed to be much more down on him. You even said “end of bench” player.

Lmao my energy is tempered expectations. End of the bench player is not a diss considering I didn’t really consider him as an NBA player coming into the season. But certain posters can’t even see their own hypocrisy so they gotta get checked.

[2010]

Who holds g league production against players? Nobody because it’s irrelevant. Vander Blue was the G League MVP last season. This season he’s playing in Italy.

If the G League was irrelevant why does it exist? Why is the league investing resources into it? Why is the league legislating ways to facilitate further player development and call-ups opportunities? Why are roster and contract rules being altered allow for G League talent to be placed on NBA rosters (two-way contracts)? Why are more teams advocating for fleshing out player development departments with executive personnel? Why are more teams attempting to acquire their own G League affiliates as opposed to sharing G League affiliates or plucking from other franchises G League rosters?

You sound retotted man

I said g league production is irrelevant in your argument. Never said the league function had no purpose.

All this Burke hype got you hot and bothered huh? Caping for Trey Burke’s g-league production sheesh.

G League production is not irrelevant in my stance cuz it shows Burke has developed his game. Those statistics and his slash line down there lend credence to the sentiment that his current production is not some mere aberration to be chalked up to small sample size.

Hot & bothered? I'm enjoying making you look foolish and exposing you as a Burke hater who is now lowkey tryna backtrack and soften prior harsh statements.

[NBA Fan 1234]

Yes it is. Because if these players who don't live up to their draft slot get sent to the G League and so not produce they will have it held against them. So if it can be held against them if they do bad down there, it has to count for something w
hen they show development and excel down there.

I think that's a false equivalency. You'd use player x doing poorly in the G-League against him because of how many players do well down there, even those who have no business being mentioned as potential NBA players, and the low talent level; you'd use player x doing well down there as having less meaning because of the poor talent level and the fact that players show out down there all the time if they are even slightly better than the average.

I think Burke can be a nice backup like Mecca says in that Napier role, but that's all I'm counting on. 115 total shots isn't something I'm holding as a large sample size either for total shots, let alone 28 total three point attempts. I think the deal the Knicks gave him was genius because it gives us another year to evaluate + the Knicks will have his bird rights so I disagree with people saying he's a bum or whatever, but, again, I'm not expecting a starter or someone who will produce nightly - I'm thinking scoring punch off the bench.

My point is G League statistics are not irrelevant when the player is projectable.

I am not EXPECTING Burke to be a starter either. But I damn sure am not ready to say he CANNOT.

He was a high lottery pick for a reason. He was a national player of the year candidate in college for a reason. Dude was on the NBA radar since middle school for a reason. He was never a scrub and he was never unskilled. He didn't succeed initially for different reasons.

Meh, honestly, I'd say the stats are way more irrelevant than relevant just because of how often players go off down there. I understand he's had some sort of "mental awakening," but it's still way too early for me to say he's legit. He still has a lot to prove, which is why having him for another year is fantastic.

Also, he was pretty atrocious before being sent down to the G-League...

[Besart19]

Burke / Teodosic / Baker
Ntilikina / Mudiay / Dotson
Hardaway / Williams / Bonga
Parker / Harkless / Beasley
Porzingis / Kanter / O'Quinn

[Tron Carter]

Burke / Teodosic / Baker
Ntilikina / Mudiay / Dotson
Hardaway / Williams / Bonga
Parker / Harkless / Beasley
Porzingis / Kanter / O'Quinn

Bonga starts over both those bums ahead of him

[3toheadmelo]

You know I fux with you on KBD. I am zeroed in on him with our Bulls pick.

But in comparison to Mikal I will say Mikal is more of a quicker twitch athlete than him. Mikal is more bouncy and explosive.

But yeah, KBD is longer, bigger frame, smoother, and more of a shot creator off the bounce.

I see Mikal as a SG/SF where KBD is more of a SF/PF.

For schits and giggles, imagine if we got them both!

every mock i've seen got him going in the 1st round

gun to my head im taking KBD over mikal

I've seen him in the 2nd in several editions of mocks. But at the end of the day it doesn't mean anything cuz mocks get things wrong after the first 5 picks every year. The mocks are very hard to predict outside of the top consensus picks.

I'm not ready to go KBD over Mikal cuz I think KBD is more of a finished product. I view Mikal as a still developing late bloomer who may still have some noticeable upside.

what if mikals upside is KBD

[Mecca]

I like Diop but I saw Michigan make him look like a D3 player last week so I’m a little cautious of him.

[HEZI]

Here's an interesting thought:

If defense is all effort based and by providing more of that effort, more players would stay in the league longer or get bigger paydays, how come so many players don't seem to put in the effort and why wouldn't they when quite often millions of dollars are at stake?


Maybe defense is about more than just effort. Or some aspects of it, at least. I'd say both are equally hard to improve on.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying players aren't getting paid because of their defense? If anything, the offense players get paid way more because offense is more valuable.

Offense is more valuable but you say defense is simple effort. So, applying that effort should be something that happens with all the players, or the vast majority, because that will make them more valuable, in relation to not being as good at a skill as they were. And yet, a lot of players don't. Or don't seem to. I'd say it's because they do try, but not everybody is good at it. It's as much a skill as shooting, having court vision, knowing when to cut, handling the ball. It's odd. In basketball, defense is largely seen as "try harder" but in other sports being good at defense is seen as a skill. More baseball players need to learn to field harder I guess; all defensive players in football are guys who can't catch or throw.

Why are you misquoting me? I never once said defense was simple effort. I said defense is more effort reliant than offense which involves more skill. Never once did I say all it takes is just trying harder, if I did then I'd have no reason to say that it takes time, dedication and willingness to improve. Makes no sense if it was just as simple as trying harder. You're the one trying to imply that it's equal. Ok, if so then is it easier to run while dribbling the ball or run without dribbling the ball? Is it easier to maneuver around the court while dribbling a ball or without dribbling a ball? Since you say it's equal, why are most defensive of the year players never MVP candidates? It's equal, right?