- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jrue's Plan
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:34 pm to Crewz
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:34 pm to Crewz
quote:
Its easier when you have a Giannis or a Harden, etc but how exactly do you plan on getting that guy?
The only way a small market team like NOLA can, through the draft.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the Boston deal, unless we flip Smart for picks. I've seen you say a few times that you dont think ownership would agree to a full rebuild and that scares me. If we do trade AD, which seems almost like a certainty at this point, then what better time are you gonna find to completely blow it up? We're trading our superstar, we're bringing in an entirely new FO, this is THE time to blow it up. We need to be planning on picking top 5 in 2020 and 2021 when the talent is really good. That's the only way this team ever competes for what really matters.
1
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:39 pm to RUFshreve
I fully agree. But I know for a fact that they asked Dell and Ferry what a full rebuild would look like. What the minimum number of years they would have to be bad for and the answer came back as 3. That was not acceptable.
The ONLY way I could see them swallowing a full rebuild is with Zion because I think you can still sell tickets with Zion and a 22 win team
The ONLY way I could see them swallowing a full rebuild is with Zion because I think you can still sell tickets with Zion and a 22 win team
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:41 pm to Crewz
That’s disappointing because 3 years is pretty reasonable for a properly executed full rebuild.
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:45 pm to Crewz
Let me first say the order that Im pulling for is this....
1) We get Zion... I dont care if we win 30 games.. Ill be pumped everytime I walk in arena.
2) We keep Davis and Jrue and get back on track
3) Trade with Boston and end up with Tatum and Brown to pair with Jrue. Need Memphis pick as well..
All three options could be done successfully IMO. That Boston deal is still very strong.
1) We get Zion... I dont care if we win 30 games.. Ill be pumped everytime I walk in arena.
2) We keep Davis and Jrue and get back on track
3) Trade with Boston and end up with Tatum and Brown to pair with Jrue. Need Memphis pick as well..
All three options could be done successfully IMO. That Boston deal is still very strong.
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:47 pm to Crewz
Three years is nothing in the grand scheme of things. NOTHING.
This is too reminiscent of Tom Benson giving Dell the win now mandate. I hope Griffin has the balls and brains to tell Gayle and Lauscha that the complete rebuild is the only right way to set this franchise up for real future success or to even have a shot at it.
It's exciting to hear some things will dramatically change, but this makes me doubt if the changes will mean much in the long run.
This is too reminiscent of Tom Benson giving Dell the win now mandate. I hope Griffin has the balls and brains to tell Gayle and Lauscha that the complete rebuild is the only right way to set this franchise up for real future success or to even have a shot at it.
It's exciting to hear some things will dramatically change, but this makes me doubt if the changes will mean much in the long run.
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:50 pm to Fun Bunch
If it was GUARANTEED to work, sure. But you could in theory try it and be in rebuild mode for 15 years like the Kings
What I think fans struggle to accept is that it is a business at the end of the day. We would love to believe that every team values titles above all else. But you don't have to beat McDonalds to have a successful burger business. You don't have to be #1. A lot of people make a lot of money selling burgers that don't own a McDonalds
It isn't all or nothing in business. And this is a billion dollar business. Fans have the luxury of saying "ALL or NOTHING!!" But thats just foolish if you are running a business. The bottom line matters, and while you could argue that taking losses for three years would be worth it financially if you become a contender for the next 10 years, my job as the owner of the business would be to say, "Can you guarantee me I will be a contender after all these years I take losses?"
And the answer will come back no. There are actually more examples of teams trying it and just being bad for a decade plus than tanking and becoming the Thunder or Sixers (neither of which will win a title even after doing it IMO)
The sooner you really understand its a business first - and not just say you understand, but REALLY understand it - the sooner you will understand why the Pels just can't go full tear down here. But I agree, it sucks that this option isn't at least on the table
What I think fans struggle to accept is that it is a business at the end of the day. We would love to believe that every team values titles above all else. But you don't have to beat McDonalds to have a successful burger business. You don't have to be #1. A lot of people make a lot of money selling burgers that don't own a McDonalds
It isn't all or nothing in business. And this is a billion dollar business. Fans have the luxury of saying "ALL or NOTHING!!" But thats just foolish if you are running a business. The bottom line matters, and while you could argue that taking losses for three years would be worth it financially if you become a contender for the next 10 years, my job as the owner of the business would be to say, "Can you guarantee me I will be a contender after all these years I take losses?"
And the answer will come back no. There are actually more examples of teams trying it and just being bad for a decade plus than tanking and becoming the Thunder or Sixers (neither of which will win a title even after doing it IMO)
The sooner you really understand its a business first - and not just say you understand, but REALLY understand it - the sooner you will understand why the Pels just can't go full tear down here. But I agree, it sucks that this option isn't at least on the table
Posted on 4/25/19 at 5:56 pm to Crewz
Would our own pick becoming top two by some luck increase or decrease the chances of Davis leaving? Hey Ad here is Prime Jrue Holiday followed by Ja Morant to create offense for you the next five years. Are go play with a broken Lebron and broken roster. I mean really
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:39 am to Crewz
Jrue doesn't want to play point, but he doesn't shoot well enough for a 2.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 9:06 am to Overbrook
Please - and this goes for everyone - Can we stop with positions? Like... let's never, ever mention them. Let's only talk about skill sets.
Jrue is a secondary ball handler and creator. He can play next to another secondary or a primary. Yes, his spot up 3-pt shooting is below average, which means it probably would not be wise playing him with another poor spot up shooter (like a Rubio) and you need at least one of your bigs to be a stretch, if not both, so he can cut into the lane when he is off ball or post up.
Skill set wise, I don't hate Darren Collison next to him, though I wish he were bigger. He can only defend the opponents smallest player. Patrick Beverly intrigues me. IN the draft, I love White next to him. Van Vleet, D. Russell, Shamet would all be good fits in an AD trade.
Jrue is a secondary ball handler and creator. He can play next to another secondary or a primary. Yes, his spot up 3-pt shooting is below average, which means it probably would not be wise playing him with another poor spot up shooter (like a Rubio) and you need at least one of your bigs to be a stretch, if not both, so he can cut into the lane when he is off ball or post up.
Skill set wise, I don't hate Darren Collison next to him, though I wish he were bigger. He can only defend the opponents smallest player. Patrick Beverly intrigues me. IN the draft, I love White next to him. Van Vleet, D. Russell, Shamet would all be good fits in an AD trade.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 12:07 pm to Crewz
quote:
Please - and this goes for everyone - Can we stop with positions? Like... let's never, ever mention them. Let's only talk about skill sets.
I just don't believe or support this belief. Basketball has evolved over years into the game it is. It will continue to evolve and positions will change, bleed into another. But it is still a game of levels and tiers, where certain size and physical attributes are magnified. There are outliers and physical freaks, that can play multiple positions at the highest level. But that doesn't change the basic elements of the game.
So I'm going to keep referring to player positions or where they best fit, plus how they fit with each other. Sorry..
Posted on 4/28/19 at 12:36 pm to brmark70816
So help me understand. I can list all the way it hurts conversation. The most common example is: "If the Pels get X, does Jrue play point guard or shooting guard."
I can list countless others. How does keeping these archaic words help dialogue. Give me an example or two if you don't mind where this would be the best terminology to use. Genuinely curious, not being condescending, because I can't think of one. To me it's short hand for the lazy because I can always think of better words to use in any situation. But I am willing to have my eyes opened
I can list countless others. How does keeping these archaic words help dialogue. Give me an example or two if you don't mind where this would be the best terminology to use. Genuinely curious, not being condescending, because I can't think of one. To me it's short hand for the lazy because I can always think of better words to use in any situation. But I am willing to have my eyes opened
Posted on 4/28/19 at 1:45 pm to Crewz
Honestly, I didn't know that it was an issue or a problem. Holiday was always a very big combo guard. When he signed his contract, it was understood that he was moving to SG full time. But he is a good passer for the position and has the ability to defend 3 positions very well. So there is a degree of flexibility, but he is a SG. Players tend to age up and grow into different roles/positions. He will become a better shooter over time or just pick his shots better. But I don't see the debate of where he fits.
I don't understand why the standard terminology doesn't work. Every facet of the basketball world labels players this way. There isn't a site, team or league that totally tosses them away. There are always 5 players on the court. It is just understood that you can mix and match the groups however is most effective. I get that "position-less players" is a popular concept. But it is based on copying teams with superior talent. It's easy to adopt this when you have Durant, who is 7 feet, can play 4 positions and one of the greatest players ever, plus you have 5 other former or current all stars. It just isn't something you can mimic.
My best counter to this, is our former management. They came in with a similar belief, which manifested in us having 4-5 combo guards and 4-5 stretch bigs. It resulted in some fascinating match ups and moments of spectacular plays. But the holes were too large for us to make up and those players were set up for failure, cause we didn't play to their strengths. I would rather not go down that road again.
quote:
Give me an example or two if you don't mind where this would be the best terminology to use.
I don't understand why the standard terminology doesn't work. Every facet of the basketball world labels players this way. There isn't a site, team or league that totally tosses them away. There are always 5 players on the court. It is just understood that you can mix and match the groups however is most effective. I get that "position-less players" is a popular concept. But it is based on copying teams with superior talent. It's easy to adopt this when you have Durant, who is 7 feet, can play 4 positions and one of the greatest players ever, plus you have 5 other former or current all stars. It just isn't something you can mimic.
My best counter to this, is our former management. They came in with a similar belief, which manifested in us having 4-5 combo guards and 4-5 stretch bigs. It resulted in some fascinating match ups and moments of spectacular plays. But the holes were too large for us to make up and those players were set up for failure, cause we didn't play to their strengths. I would rather not go down that road again.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 1:58 pm to brmark70816
I am telling you - people who work inside basketball do not use positions. The only time I come across them is with fans. Sometimes, as a writer, we use them because the fans understand it better. Its short hand. But I promise you, teams don't say - "Well, we got our point guard, now we need a shooting guard and a power forward." Fans do that, but teams don't.
The issue with this short hand comes in the example I laid out and many others. You will see if we get Tatum and another poster says, "We should draft DeAndre Hunter" , then other posters will come back and say, "We already have Tatum as our small forward, we don't need Hunter. We should get Clarke because we need a power forward.
Compare this to actual front offices, where they would talk about what kind of players Tatum and Hunter can defend, whether they would get in each others way offensively or they would compliment each other. If either are primary or secondary ball handlers. If the spacing they provide outweighs average to below average defensive rebounding totals as an up front combo, etc etc.
Its just a better way to discuss basketball and team building/fit. Point guard in the way it is used now is stupid because if you look at the 30 guys who start at "point guard", you will find far more differences than similarities. There is no universal "point guard" but primary ball handler has a universal nature to it.
It might be asking too much at this point, but I just hope we can discuss it that way over time.
The issue with this short hand comes in the example I laid out and many others. You will see if we get Tatum and another poster says, "We should draft DeAndre Hunter" , then other posters will come back and say, "We already have Tatum as our small forward, we don't need Hunter. We should get Clarke because we need a power forward.
Compare this to actual front offices, where they would talk about what kind of players Tatum and Hunter can defend, whether they would get in each others way offensively or they would compliment each other. If either are primary or secondary ball handlers. If the spacing they provide outweighs average to below average defensive rebounding totals as an up front combo, etc etc.
Its just a better way to discuss basketball and team building/fit. Point guard in the way it is used now is stupid because if you look at the 30 guys who start at "point guard", you will find far more differences than similarities. There is no universal "point guard" but primary ball handler has a universal nature to it.
It might be asking too much at this point, but I just hope we can discuss it that way over time.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:10 pm to Crewz
I get what you are saying, but I don't work for a basketball team and neither do the vast majority of people on here. It is what we understand, just like you said. I do like and always believed, that you are who you defend. Which is what you alluded to in your post. But there is overlap, even at the level you are describing. Plus the optimum way to elevate those players talents.
Even if you move away from titles or labels. If you had Tatum, would it be best to grab Hunter? Who has a lot of the same characteristics and attributes. Or would you take a lesser player like White, who has other skills you don't currently have on the roster. Its all conjecture and speculation. I think it adds a bit of debate and conversation, which isn't always a bad thing.
I just don't see that happening. There is no debating your knowledge and experience, plus there is a solid group of guys here that will probably indulge you. But me and the rest of the random rabble that visit will just be a bit out of our element and it will probably be over our heads. I think you are just going to get frustrated trying to push that narrative. Sorry again..
Even if you move away from titles or labels. If you had Tatum, would it be best to grab Hunter? Who has a lot of the same characteristics and attributes. Or would you take a lesser player like White, who has other skills you don't currently have on the roster. Its all conjecture and speculation. I think it adds a bit of debate and conversation, which isn't always a bad thing.
quote:
It might be asking too much at this point, but I just hope we can discuss it that way over time.
I just don't see that happening. There is no debating your knowledge and experience, plus there is a solid group of guys here that will probably indulge you. But me and the rest of the random rabble that visit will just be a bit out of our element and it will probably be over our heads. I think you are just going to get frustrated trying to push that narrative. Sorry again..
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:12 pm to Crewz
All of your threads are worded like homework
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:37 pm to Hester Carries
I get that. But from my perspective, my goal is to take conversation to the next level. Some will say, "Dude, its just a message board. It doesn't have to be taken that serious."
And that's fine for others. For me, I can hope for evolution, even if I never get it. I will likely try and fail, but thats my choice.
How about this as a compromise -- moving forward, we never discuss Jrue as a point guard or shooting guard. Nor do we use that term for the other guard(s) we acquire this offseason. Instead, we only discuss how they compliment each other and what skill sets they bring to the table. Is that fair?
And that's fine for others. For me, I can hope for evolution, even if I never get it. I will likely try and fail, but thats my choice.
How about this as a compromise -- moving forward, we never discuss Jrue as a point guard or shooting guard. Nor do we use that term for the other guard(s) we acquire this offseason. Instead, we only discuss how they compliment each other and what skill sets they bring to the table. Is that fair?
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:41 pm to brmark70816
But don't you see how you are already doing it -- your Hunter vs. White take is right on. But you don't have to say, "Lets take White because we need a point guard." Say, "I'd prefer White because we need another primary/secondary ball handler and a shot creator more than we need a catch and shoot wing."
Again, I don't want to come off like a prick. But I also don't want conversations going on and on about how Bradley Beal wouldn't be good to add because it would force Jrue Holiday to play "Point guard" and he isn't good at "point guard"
Again, I don't want to come off like a prick. But I also don't want conversations going on and on about how Bradley Beal wouldn't be good to add because it would force Jrue Holiday to play "Point guard" and he isn't good at "point guard"
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:55 pm to Crewz
quote:
Jrue as a point guard or shooting guard.
I mean he's very clearly none of those things. And all of them. But 1-5 designations are meaningless.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 2:56 pm to Crewz
I don't know if the two are mutually exclusive and there is a bit of truth to it, at least to me. Although Holiday and Beal are very different players, they would still defend the same players. Neither one is really big enough to guard bigger wings full time or quick enough to cover the burners that bring up the ball most times. So playing both together is redundant and a huge misallocation of cap dollars. Perhaps this is what you mean though, as talking about their fit together rather than their positions..
Posted on 4/28/19 at 3:07 pm to brmark70816
Exactly what I mean. What you just typed is 1000x more intelligent than saying, 'We shouldn't have Beal and Jrue because they are both shooting guards."
Now, I disagree with your take. But thats fine, because I would be debating with somebody who laid out their argument intelligently as opposed to 'normal fan guy' who does the whole "two shooting guards" thing. I can show you how their skill sets actually don't overlap, but if your starting point was that they won't work, simply because they are both listed on the program as "shooting guards" - then I have to start my counterpoints from a stupid, inaccurate place.
Now, I disagree with your take. But thats fine, because I would be debating with somebody who laid out their argument intelligently as opposed to 'normal fan guy' who does the whole "two shooting guards" thing. I can show you how their skill sets actually don't overlap, but if your starting point was that they won't work, simply because they are both listed on the program as "shooting guards" - then I have to start my counterpoints from a stupid, inaccurate place.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News