Game 22: Cleveland Cavaliers (5-16) @ Philadelphia Sixers (15-7) - 7:00 PM ET

[jbk1234]

Again they dished out 31 assists just last week. Beilein said before this Athletic debacle that teams were sticking to Kevin forcing our guards to try other things. We heard that 2 or more players were sick including Kevin.

We'll see how this sorts out but this is nothing we haven't seen before as a team struggles to learn a new system and adopt it. What works against some teams just isn't far enough along to work against others and/or after defensive adjustments.

I think the point about teams not leaving, or even doubling, Love is fair. But the reason it's important to continue to play within the offense when that happens is because other guys will be wide open if you make the right passes. Dribbling into a packed paint isn't the answer. Frankly, I'd be less concerned if they were shooting more from three point range instead. I just don't see an iteration of this backcourt that's *good* unless they're hitting two three point shots each per game.

The players simply aren't far enough along in learning the offense (or defense) and executing the same thing over and over that the defense is prepared to thwart won't get anything done. Garland, Sexton, and Porter Jr are all at a point where anything they get a chance to try will help teach them what they can and can't get away with at the pro-level. So, it's not breaking off the offense that worries me ... it's whether they have the patience to keep practicing and learning so they can eventually get to to the next stage in their reads AND it becomes instinctual. Repeat. Rinse. Soak.

Frustration is natural and the coaching staff needs to try to manage that and teach patience. This isn't about beating Philly on the second night of a back to back with players sick. It's about beating a .500 team like Orlando at home. We've come up short of that twice, but we did improve - and incremental improvement is what a rebuild is all about.

Again, you've offered a more complete perspective in terms of where they're at with development and it is more than fair. With respect to the bolded though, I'm not sure how it becomes instinctual if you don't start reining in the real time reversion to what's most familiar and easy. I guess I'm not sure why using the pine as a motivational tool is being frowned upon. We're not playing good basketball either way. We shouldn't fall into the trap of letting Dion and Kyrie go YOLO because otherwise we might lose by 30 instead of 20. If we're being honest about where everyone is in their development, and we're losing (badly) anyway, then it's probably most important that we lose playing the way the coach and organization wants everyone to play.

You draft 19-year old rookies, and in exchange for them becoming instant millionaires, you have team control for four years. It seems like at least the first couple years of that time frame should be spent trying to get them to play within the long-term vision your organization has. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Other teams have other systems and trades can be worked out. There are *franchise* prospects who are talented enough where you'd have to consider adjusting your system. They're just not on the Cavs roster.

[JonFromVA]

I think the point about teams not leaving, or even doubling, Love is fair. But the reason it's important to continue to play within the offense when that happens is because other guys will be wide open if you make the right passes. Dribbling into a packed paint isn't the answer. Frankly, I'd be less concerned if they were shooting more from three point range instead. I just don't see an iteration of this backcourt that's *good* unless they're hitting two three point shots each per game.

The players simply aren't far enough along in learning the offense (or defense) and executing the same thing over and over that the defense is prepared to thwart won't get anything done. Garland, Sexton, and Porter Jr are all at a point where anything they get a chance to try will help teach them what they can and can't get away with at the pro-level. So, it's not breaking off the offense that worries me ... it's whether they have the patience to keep practicing and learning so they can eventually get to to the next stage in their reads AND it becomes instinctual. Repeat. Rinse. Soak.

Frustration is natural and the coaching staff needs to try to manage that and teach patience. This isn't about beating Philly on the second night of a back to back with players sick. It's about beating a .500 team like Orlando at home. We've come up short of that twice, but we did improve - and incremental improvement is what a rebuild is all about.

Again, you've offered a more complete perspective in terms of where they're at with development and it is more than fair. With respect to the bolded though, I'm not sure how it becomes instinctual if you don't start reining in the real time reversion to what's most familiar and easy. I guess I'm not sure why using the pine as a motivational tool is being frowned upon. We're not playing good basketball either way. We shouldn't fall into the trap of letting Dion and Kyrie go YOLO because otherwise we might lose by 30 instead of 20. If we're being honest about where everyone is in their development, and we're losing (badly) anyway, then it's probably most important that we lose playing the way the coach and organization wants everyone to play.

You draft 19-year old rookies, and in exchange for them becoming instant millionaires, you have team control for four years. It seems like at least the first couple years of that time frame should be spent trying to get them to play within the long-term vision your organization has. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Other teams have other systems and trades can be worked out. There are *franchise* prospects who are talented enough where you'd have to consider adjusting your system. They're just not on the Cavs roster.

I just don't think the head coach needs that tight of a grip on the team ... heck, letting the players do what they want so they can see it doesn't work either is a legit approach to achieving buy-in or perhaps compromise. It's a long - long road.

If it becomes clear that certain players will never buy-in and/or just don't have the patience for a rebuild, maybe you consider dumping them; but if they're young enough maybe you consider motivating them in some other ways.

I mean ... geez ... Danny Green and Joe Harris played 4 years in the NCAA and we couldn't figure out how to get anything useful out of them when we desperately needed young/cheap/2-way players; but eventually other teams did. We have to find ways to help these young players grow and be patient enough to let them.

I know nobody wants to hear ... hey, give it 4 years and let's see how things are going; but that might just be what it takes with 19 & 20 year old players who clearly are not generational talents.

[jbk1234]

The players simply aren't far enough along in learning the offense (or defense) and executing the same thing over and over that the defense is prepared to thwart won't get anything done. Garland, Sexton, and Porter Jr are all at a point where anything they get a chance to try will help teach them what they can and can't get away with at the pro-level. So, it's not breaking off the offense that worries me ... it's whether they have the patience to keep practicing and learning so they can eventually get to to the next stage in their reads AND it becomes instinctual. Repeat. Rinse. Soak.

Frustration is natural and the coaching staff needs to try to manage that and teach patience. This isn't about beating Philly on the second night of a back to back with players sick. It's about beating a .500 team like Orlando at home. We've come up short of that twice, but we did improve - and incremental improvement is what a rebuild is all about.

Again, you've offered a more complete perspective in terms of where they're at with development and it is more than fair. With respect to the bolded though, I'm not sure how it becomes instinctual if you don't start reining in the real time reversion to what's most familiar and easy. I guess I'm not sure why using the pine as a motivational tool is being frowned upon. We're not playing good basketball either way. We shouldn't fall into the trap of letting Dion and Kyrie go YOLO because otherwise we might lose by 30 instead of 20. If we're being honest about where everyone is in their development, and we're losing (badly) anyway, then it's probably most important that we lose playing the way the coach and organization wants everyone to play.

You draft 19-year old rookies, and in exchange for them becoming instant millionaires, you have team control for four years. It seems like at least the first couple years of that time frame should be spent trying to get them to play within the long-term vision your organization has. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Other teams have other systems and trades can be worked out. There are *franchise* prospects who are talented enough where you'd have to consider adjusting your system. They're just not on the Cavs roster.

I just don't think the head coach needs that tight of a grip on the team ... heck, letting the players do what they want so they can see it doesn't work either is a legit approach to achieving buy-in or perhaps compromise. It's a long - long road.

If it becomes clear that certain players will never buy-in and/or just don't have the patience for a rebuild, maybe you consider dumping them; but if they're young enough maybe you consider motivating them in some other ways.

I mean ... geez ... Danny Green and Joe Harris played 4 years in the NCAA and we couldn't figure out how to get anything useful out of them when we desperately needed young/cheap/2-way players; but eventually other teams did. We have to find ways to help these young players grow and be patient enough to let them.

I know nobody wants to hear ... hey, give it 4 years and let's see how things are going; but that might just be what it takes with 19 & 20 year old players who clearly are not generational talents.

At this point, my primary concern is down the line. If we draft players who are better then these guys, and we should all hope that's the case, then they need to be use to sharing the ball and stretching the floor when those players step on the court. Otherwise, you've got to trade them and you won't like the return. The league has wised up as to the relative value of guys like Reggie Jackson, Schroeder, Teague, et. al. coming off of rookie contracts. Even Westbrook who is vastly more talented has a limited trade market as a result of his play style. I suspect a healthy John Wall will still be impossible to move. There's too many examples as to how that style of play caps your team's ceiling.

[JonFromVA]

Again, you've offered a more complete perspective in terms of where they're at with development and it is more than fair. With respect to the bolded though, I'm not sure how it becomes instinctual if you don't start reining in the real time reversion to what's most familiar and easy. I guess I'm not sure why using the pine as a motivational tool is being frowned upon. We're not playing good basketball either way. We shouldn't fall into the trap of letting Dion and Kyrie go YOLO because otherwise we might lose by 30 instead of 20. If we're being honest about where everyone is in their development, and we're losing (badly) anyway, then it's probably most important that we lose playing the way the coach and organization wants everyone to play.

You draft 19-year old rookies, and in exchange for them becoming instant millionaires, you have team control for four years. It seems like at least the first couple years of that time frame should be spent trying to get them to play within the long-term vision your organization has. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Other teams have other systems and trades can be worked out. There are *franchise* prospects who are talented enough where you'd have to consider adjusting your system. They're just not on the Cavs roster.

I just don't think the head coach needs that tight of a grip on the team ... heck, letting the players do what they want so they can see it doesn't work either is a legit approach to achieving buy-in or perhaps compromise. It's a long - long road.

If it becomes clear that certain players will never buy-in and/or just don't have the patience for a rebuild, maybe you consider dumping them; but if they're young enough maybe you consider motivating them in some other ways.

I mean ... geez ... Danny Green and Joe Harris played 4 years in the NCAA and we couldn't figure out how to get anything useful out of them when we desperately needed young/cheap/2-way players; but eventually other teams did. We have to find ways to help these young players grow and be patient enough to let them.

I know nobody wants to hear ... hey, give it 4 years and let's see how things are going; but that might just be what it takes with 19 & 20 year old players who clearly are not generational talents.

At this point, my primary concern is down the line. If we draft players who are better then these guys, and we should all hope that's the case, then they need to be use to sharing the ball and stretching the floor when those players step on the court. Otherwise, you've got to trade them and you won't like the return. The league has wised up as to the relative value of guys like Reggie Jackson, Schroeder, Teague, et. al. coming off of rookie contracts. Even Westbrook who is vastly more talented has a limited trade market as a result of his play style. I suspect a healthy John Wall will still be impossible to move. There's too many examples as to how that style of play caps your team's ceiling.

It doesn't really matter what we do if our talent evaluation and player development suck.

[gflem]

I just don't think the head coach needs that tight of a grip on the team ... heck, letting the players do what they want so they can see it doesn't work either is a legit approach to achieving buy-in or perhaps compromise. It's a long - long road.

If it becomes clear that certain players will never buy-in and/or just don't have the patience for a rebuild, maybe you consider dumping them; but if they're young enough maybe you consider motivating them in some other ways.

I mean ... geez ... Danny Green and Joe Harris played 4 years in the NCAA and we couldn't figure out how to get anything useful out of them when we desperately needed young/cheap/2-way players; but eventually other teams did. We have to find ways to help these young players grow and be patient enough to let them.

I know nobody wants to hear ... hey, give it 4 years and let's see how things are going; but that might just be what it takes with 19 & 20 year old players who clearly are not generational talents.

At this point, my primary concern is down the line. If we draft players who are better then these guys, and we should all hope that's the case, then they need to be use to sharing the ball and stretching the floor when those players step on the court. Otherwise, you've got to trade them and you won't like the return. The league has wised up as to the relative value of guys like Reggie Jackson, Schroeder, Teague, et. al. coming off of rookie contracts. Even Westbrook who is vastly more talented has a limited trade market as a result of his play style. I suspect a healthy John Wall will still be impossible to move. There's too many examples as to how that style of play caps your team's ceiling.

It doesn't really matter what we do if our talent evaluation and player development suck.

You can do one without the other though. They aren't mutually exclusive. Like someone said in another thread, it took Lebron to come back here to straighten Kyrie out enough to be useful to a contending team, for a time at least. The whole concept of drafting 19 and 20 year olds over and over again is destined to fail. Regardless of talent level imo. Until or unless one of the players is the clear alpha player ala Jordan.

[JonFromVA]

At this point, my primary concern is down the line. If we draft players who are better then these guys, and we should all hope that's the case, then they need to be use to sharing the ball and stretching the floor when those players step on the court. Otherwise, you've got to trade them and you won't like the return. The league has wised up as to the relative value of guys like Reggie Jackson, Schroeder, Teague, et. al. coming off of rookie contracts. Even Westbrook who is vastly more talented has a limited trade market as a result of his play style. I suspect a healthy John Wall will still be impossible to move. There's too many examples as to how that style of play caps your team's ceiling.

It doesn't really matter what we do if our talent evaluation and player development suck.

You can do one without the other though. They aren't mutually exclusive. Like someone said in another thread, it took Lebron to come back here to straighten Kyrie out enough to be useful to a contending team, for a time at least. The whole concept of drafting 19 and 20 year olds over and over again is destined to fail. Regardless of talent level imo. Until or unless one of the players is the clear alpha player ala Jordan.

I'm not counting on the Cavs drafting another LeBron (even Bronnie) in my lifetime. Given we have limited options in free-agency, player development and talent evaluation will be pretty key to any future success. Personally, I think "planning for a championship" is foolish. I think a championship is actually the convergence of a series of good decisions and luck, not a plan. If we create a solid foundation built on player development and talent evaluation, we will have a fun team to follow, and with some breaks/luck maybe even compete for a title again. No alpha dogs required.