SLC Summer League Game 3: Jazz v. Spurs

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I already see more potential in Brantley than Niang.

Brantley can bully his way to the rim and use his length to finish in ways that Niang can't. He has the potential to be a physical force.

 

[Miggs]

Lmao. It was one summer league game against scrubs. Relax people. He might miss those threes in the next three games.

 

[416Klawzz]

Lmao. It was one summer league game against scrubs. Relax people. He might miss those threes in the next three games.

Regardless I see more flashes of versatility from Brantley than I see with Niang. I feel Georges like Exum are our weaker roster spots that need upgrades.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Really DL got lucky with both of those pics. Just like Milwaukee did with giannis. It doesn't make him a savant to have a couple late first rounders pay off. It happens From time to time but it was even money they wouldn't. We even had Gobert detractors here for a season or 2, and he did play in the g league a bit. I think DL has done a worse than average job at roster management, and I think his short-sightedness cost us in terms of holding good players as well as not taking the risks necessary to win. The FO making some moves this year isn't particularly bold either, because there was so much writing on the wall that literally everyone knew they had to do something or risk losing not just their 2 budding stars, but a good chunk of fan support as well.

With that logic, every player ever picked was lucky. Nobody knows for sure someone will pan out or we wouldn’t have so many busted or underperforming #1 picks.

The facts are that DL made moves to pick DM and Gobert so clearly he saw something in them. Was it a guarantee? As to moving up for Burke, he did do it even if it sounds like he was Corbins choice. He’s on the hook for being the final call. I’m sure you’ve never done something you didn’t want just because your wife, kid, or friend wanted to so you wouldn’t understand.

It’s silly to say successful moves were luck yet say all failures were his fault. That my friend is faulty logic.

 

[LogGrad98]

With that logic, every player ever picked was lucky. Nobody knows for sure someone will pan out or we wouldn’t have so many busted or underperforming #1 picks.

The facts are that DL made moves to pick DM and Gobert so clearly he saw something in them. Was it a guarantee? As to moving up for Burke, he did do it even if it sounds like he was Corbins choice. He’s on the hook for being the final call. I’m sure you’ve never done something you didn’t want just because your wife, kid, or friend wanted to so you wouldn’t understand.

It’s silly to say successful moves were luck yet say all failures were his fault. That my friend is faulty logic.

It's also silly to say that every pick that panned out was because of the highly developed gift of discernment of the person making the pick. Luck is involved in every single pick. This is proven with statistics by the way. It's pretty easily shown that the later you pick in the draft, the less likely that pick turns into a star, or even a starter or role player. It's not mystical and even the very best FO people end up with bombs. Was it DL (might have been KOC can't remember) that moved up to draft Burke over the Greek freak? Or Lyles, or even Exum over...guess who...taken at 27 in that same draft...Bogdonovich! To try to say that these picks are all about the skill and knowledge of the people making the picks is actually far more ridiculous than saying that it's 100% about luck. After you get out of the top 5 picks even, the luck factor gets dramatically higher. Out of the lottery even more so.

Yes they have to have enough knowledge to build their big board, to know how to rank the incoming players, to analyze what fits with the team or who the next BPA might be, more than the casual fan obviously. That is generally where the top GMs differentiate themselves. But every single GM has many more failures on their list of career picks than successes. How is that explained if not luck?

 

[LogGrad98]

With that logic, every player ever picked was lucky. Nobody knows for sure someone will pan out or we wouldn’t have so many busted or underperforming #1 picks.

The facts are that DL made moves to pick DM and Gobert so clearly he saw something in them. Was it a guarantee? As to moving up for Burke, he did do it even if it sounds like he was Corbins choice. He’s on the hook for being the final call. I’m sure you’ve never done something you didn’t want just because your wife, kid, or friend wanted to so you wouldn’t understand.

It’s silly to say successful moves were luck yet say all failures were his fault. That my friend is faulty logic.

As for your last paragraph, he gets equal credit for all of his picks really. Do the math, has he drafted more generational talent or more busts?

Also you need to keep up with the discussion. I was not making the claim that he only gets credit for the bad picks, I was arguing against the idea that he is some savant because he saw something in Gobert and Mitchell. I think he is above average as a GM in general but the idea that he is some mystical soothsayer because he moved up a few spots to pick Mitchell is ridiculous.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

As for your last paragraph, he gets equal credit for all of his picks really. Do the math, has he drafted more generational talent or more busts?

Also you need to keep up with the discussion. I was not making the claim that he only gets credit for the bad picks, I was arguing against the idea that he is some savant because he saw something in Gobert and Mitchell. I think he is above average as a GM in general but the idea that he is some mystical soothsayer because he moved up a few spots to pick Mitchell is ridiculous.

Ok.

To me it didn't sound like you have been saying DL is an above average GM, but that he's an idiot for drafting Burke and getting lucky with DM and Gobert, among other things.
I aplologize for not keeping up with the discussion adequately.
It will happen again.

 

[RandyForRubio]

As for your last paragraph, he gets equal credit for all of his picks really. Do the math, has he drafted more generational talent or more busts?

Also you need to keep up with the discussion. I was not making the claim that he only gets credit for the bad picks, I was arguing against the idea that he is some savant because he saw something in Gobert and Mitchell. I think he is above average as a GM in general but the idea that he is some mystical soothsayer because he moved up a few spots to pick Mitchell is ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to keep up, because you're arguing against an idea that hasn't been posed. I haven't seen anybody claim that DL is/was a savant, or extraordinarily good at his job. Above average, good, very good even, yes. Savant? Nobody has said that.

You've knocked his drafting more than you've complimented it, said he's below average in roster management, yet you still think he's above average overall? How did you get there with all of the above being true in your mind?

 

[fishonjazz]

Uhh, you have to dribble to step back bruh.

Harden don't

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LogGrad98]

Perhaps you need to keep up, because you're arguing against an idea that hasn't been posed. I haven't seen anybody claim that DL is/was a savant, or extraordinarily good at his job. Above average, good, very good even, yes. Savant? Nobody has said that.

You've knocked his drafting more than you've complimented it, said he's below average in roster management, yet you still think he's above average overall? How did you get there with all of the above being true in your mind?

You need to reading comprehension. Here is some homework, go search for every post by every person about DL and his roster management and track record, cross-reference them all for opinions on his abilities (you will probably need a spreadsheet), then get back to us once you have run your regression analysis and have a valid r-value. TIA

 

[Jazz Spazz]

As for your last paragraph, he gets equal credit for all of his picks really. Do the math, has he drafted more generational talent or more busts?

Also you need to keep up with the discussion. I was not making the claim that he only gets credit for the bad picks, I was arguing against the idea that he is some savant because he saw something in Gobert and Mitchell. I think he is above average as a GM in general but the idea that he is some mystical soothsayer because he moved up a few spots to pick Mitchell is ridiculous.

I tried so hard to walk away but failed.

What GM in the history of GM's has picked more generational talents than "busts"?
I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's the nature of the NBA that more players will wash out than will stick. Yes there are better odds of them sticking around with better draft spots, but generational talents are just that, generational. If there are only a few per decade out of hundreds of drafted players, how is that a black mark or a sign of weakness for any GM unless they are exceptionally poor at it. If DL picked up 2 generational talents in his 7 or 8 years, I consider that a success.

There, I'm done. If I have any self control at all I'll walk away from here.

 

[RandyForRubio]

You need to reading comprehension. Here is some homework, go search for every post by every person about DL and his roster management and track record, cross-reference them all for opinions on his abilities (you will probably need a spreadsheet), then get back to us once you have run your regression analysis and have a valid r-value. TIA

"You need to reading comprehension."

Good work on that one Log.

Now answer the questions put before you, if you're capable.