Care to explain what the **** you are talking about?
Following potential 2014 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
Care to explain what the **** you are talking about?
More evidence of Randle's SF skills on show in last night's game:
- 0.39min: outlet pass to start a fast break, give & go & scores
- 0.51min: assist to 3pt shooter on the perimeter
- 1.09min: starting from the 3pt line, drives baseline and finished with AUTHORITY!!!
- 1.33min: a running outlet pass to start a fast break - leading to a quick/easy basket
- 1.53min: touch pass in the paint
- 2.19min: received a pass at the 3pt line, dribble/drive to the hoop, draws foul and scores
- 2.53min: handles the ball in open court, drives to the painted area - quick pass out to 3pt shooter
- 3.02min: Again, starting at the 3pt line, dribble/drive to the hoop - this time quick pass to the man in the paint who scores
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmKZBMPLuqg
- 0.39min: outlet pass to start a fast break, give & go & scores
- 0.51min: assist to 3pt shooter on the perimeter
- 1.09min: starting from the 3pt line, drives baseline and finished with AUTHORITY!!!
- 1.33min: a running outlet pass to start a fast break - leading to a quick/easy basket
- 1.53min: touch pass in the paint
- 2.19min: received a pass at the 3pt line, dribble/drive to the hoop, draws foul and scores
- 2.53min: handles the ball in open court, drives to the painted area - quick pass out to 3pt shooter
- 3.02min: Again, starting at the 3pt line, dribble/drive to the hoop - this time quick pass to the man in the paint who scores
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmKZBMPLuqg
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Why the F does it matter if Randle is an SF or not? Clearly he's a versatile forward-- there is zero need to pigeon-hole him into a position. It's not like he's going to become the next Derrick Williams or something.
It's more to do with whether we can keep Favors, Kanter AND add Randle to our starting lineup.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
That's ****ing retarded. How about we trade the worst of the three, and get a ****load of assets in return?
The only loyalty the Jazz should have, is to players who work their *** off, and get this team some wins.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Man, I really liked watching Van-at-the-Horn.
I do like Kanter A LOT and he's a PF in this league. Even if we trade Favors, I think Gobert is best suited to anchor our front court at the C. Let's say we traded Favors for Rondo:
Gobert
Kanter
Randle
Hayward
Rondo
Nice, well balanced team. Defense/Offense. A ton of rebounds.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Your post could have stopped here. And, you could just copy-and-paste, nah mean?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Why does Randle need to start at the 3?
EDIT: The thought of Kanter guarding stretch-4s, or players like Melo and Lebron, gives me nightmares.
Would you rather draft Randle and trade Kanter? With Gobert, I'd rather trade Favors and keep Kanter who gives us much more in terms of scoring.
As Kanter can't play the C effectively (his defensive rebound sucks and he's proven to be too small for the likes of Brooke Lopez), He's better suited at the PF. Meaning if you'd want to start Randle, he'll have to play the 3.
Actually - let's say we drafted Randle - what would you do to re-jig the lineup?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
but kanter gets lots a offensive rebounds so he's a good defender ok?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Personally, I think it's unbelievably dumb to draft Randle solely off of the expectation that he can play the 3 next to Favors/Kanter or Kanter/Gobert or whatever our frontcourt rotation might be.
Its plainly obvious that Randle has a great chance of being the best big on our team if we draft him-- so why do we make him fit into our team structure? Should it not be the opposite? If we draft Randle, he should get the starting gig as PF, 100%. Whether that means we move Kanter to the 5, or Gobert to the 5 and Kanter to the bench, it really doesn't ****ing matter. The 86 celtics managed to secure a rotation with Bill Walton, Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale-- all HOFers (Bill Walton also got 6th man of the year that year, IIRC).
If we draft Randle, it means our team wants him as our starting PF. It's fine if it makes Favors or Kanter expendable-- seeing as there are a plethora of teams who'd want them on their rosters. This is what drafting BPA is all about. We draft the best player, we cut the weakest link, and use the assets we get in return to address a position of need.
Its plainly obvious that Randle has a great chance of being the best big on our team if we draft him-- so why do we make him fit into our team structure? Should it not be the opposite? If we draft Randle, he should get the starting gig as PF, 100%. Whether that means we move Kanter to the 5, or Gobert to the 5 and Kanter to the bench, it really doesn't ****ing matter. The 86 celtics managed to secure a rotation with Bill Walton, Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale-- all HOFers (Bill Walton also got 6th man of the year that year, IIRC).
If we draft Randle, it means our team wants him as our starting PF. It's fine if it makes Favors or Kanter expendable-- seeing as there are a plethora of teams who'd want them on their rosters. This is what drafting BPA is all about. We draft the best player, we cut the weakest link, and use the assets we get in return to address a position of need.