KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks
KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.
minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
GooniousMaximus wrote:maybe move Memphis east and one of Milwaukee or Chicago west? maybe even New Orleans east but that's tough since is similar to Mil/Chi. the western conf divisions are terrible, without an expansion it'd be tough to break it up more other than changing up the divisions.
minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
johanliebert wrote:minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Regarding Modern Basketball. I don't give a rat's a$$ about it. Winning basketball is what I care about.
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.
minimus wrote:johanliebert wrote:minimus wrote:
Bold statement. Too bad nobody seems to care about what is shown in videos.
why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.
I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.
KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:johanliebert wrote:why should we its college basketball. The talent level and game in general isnt the same as the NBA. OP came off as a guy who thinks he's an expert at coaching high level ball but really is just watching from his couch.
I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.
Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.
minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:
I looks like you have missed the point. If you watch modern NBA offenses than you might notice that they use same principles when we speak about positoinless offense, game concepts etc. HOU, GSW are bright examples of when to run set plays, or just start offense then read and react by using instincts and concepts.
Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.
This is how we ended up with Thibs
KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Once again I don't give a rat's a$$ about it being modern or not. If it's modern and winning great. If it's modern and losing it sucks. Winning basketball is what matters.
This is how we ended up with Thibs
IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.
minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:
This is how we ended up with Thibs
IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.
I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.
Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.
You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.
Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:IIRC under Thibs our lineup with Butler in it was the best offense in basketball. I don't know if it was modern or old fashioned, but it was incredibly successful. The funny thing is defense was Thib's calling card and that was behind his offense with Butler in the lineup. I think it has been proven how good Butler is. Butler was by far the 76ers best player/lead dog in the playoffs and they could have easily been NBA champs last year except for an incredible bounce and Embiid being sick in that series.
I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.
Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.
You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.
Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.
KGdaBom wrote:KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:
I was waiting for top 4 offense argument. Honestly it is very easy to explain.
Every successful team has elite number two option. Some of them had even elite number three option as well. See Embiid-Simmons-Butler, Kawhi-Siakam, Harden-CP3, Curry-KD-Klay, Mitchell-Gobert, Giannis-Middleton etc.
You win because you have elite option one, but if your option two and three are stars you have a huge advantage. It was a luxury to have Butler as option two. Was KAT bad as number one option? He failed only in playoffs where was obvious that Thibs as not good as we all expected. Defense and offense did not work. Many good teams failed because of ego of superstars, in our case I strongly believe that Butler should not be number one option for playoffs team, but he is an elite number two option. Having Wiggins and Towns around allowed him to shine, same case with Embiid and Simmons. But Butler ego is like detonator with delayed start. I am sure that Riley is aware of it, Pat basically promised number one role to Butler, but I wouldn't not be surprised if MIA make a big trade for a superstar, because otherwise the trade for Butlet doesn't make sense at all. He is in his prime, he must win otherwise he will become a cancer.
Why modern basketball is THE FIRST thing we need to think about now? It is simple, we MUST overcome gap in talent with chemistry and steady development. Both within organization and players. Many underestimate the organization: internal processes and things that are not visible for fans, like coaching staff decision making, gleague management, scouting etc. If you say I don't care about it, I need wins, then probably you will be disappointed this MIN season. Rosas tried badly to get Russell because he understands the lack of talent. But without an elite number two option, we create a team structure, processes that will support and help our young players to succeed. Think about it like backbone for our team. If everything goes smoothly than you don't care about your backbone, if your backbone is broken you can't do nothing. That exactly what happened with Thibs. That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.
As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.
KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:KGdaBom wrote:minimus wrote:That's is why Rosas started with complete overhaul of team organization. And I hope it will bring in MIN modern and winning basketball sooner than later.
As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.
Maybe not "complete" but it absolutely was an overhaul. Replaced 7 players on a 15-man roster. Only one who remains from the coaching staff is Saunders. Only one who remains from the front office is Layden.
You rarely see bigger overhauls than that in professional sports.
minimus wrote:KGdaBom wrote:KGdaBom wrote:I don't give a rat's a$$ about modern basketball. All I care is if it's winning basketball whether modern, old or archaic.
As for Rosas overhaul it didn't happen. He kept the same head coach which he shouldn't have done and as for the players all he did was overhaul the bench. Good chance the entire starting lineup remains the same except for the possibility of Culver.
Technically we have a new head coach. Just deal with it, lol. I know your pessimism about Rosas, Ryan, KAT, Taylor and my English can be overwhelming, but KGdaBom, it won't ruin mine optimism. So deal with it too
KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.
Taj Gibson/Dario Saric
KGdaBom wrote:Klomp wrote:KGdaBom wrote:It was a huge overhaul of the bench, but not one of last years starters was moved.
Taj Gibson/Dario Saric
To me last years starters were KAT, RoCo, Wiggins, Okogie, and Teague. However, I know that Dario was starting part of the time. Didn't Okogie start a number of games? So I grant that one Fringe starter was moved.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Klomp wrote:Taj Gibson/Dario Saric
To me last years starters were KAT, RoCo, Wiggins, Okogie, and Teague. However, I know that Dario was starting part of the time. Didn't Okogie start a number of games? So I grant that one Fringe starter was moved.
2018-19 starts
PG: Teague 41, Jones 23, Rose 13, Bayless 6, Canaan 1
SG/SF: Wiggins 73, Okogie 52, Covington 22, Butler 10, Bates-Diop 3, Deng 2
PF/C: Towns 77, Gibson 57, Saric 28, Dieng 2
Return to Minnesota Timberwolves