Dear FRONT OFFICE: NO ONE WANTS TO WIN GAMES WITH RJ AND MW!

[Jeditiger]

Well Rudy and Marv play different positions, but I think they both give us a ton of versatility with our bigs. I'm ok with letting RJ walk, but Marvin has value. If we could trade him for other assets then I can live with that. But we ultimately need players to play, and Marvin seems like he fits for the time being.

 

[GVC]

If what you say is true about the learning process, and I agree with lots of it then isn't it time to let RJ and Marvin go if we can?

Uh, no. The 5 young guys are playing leading roles, on-ball. RJ and Marvin are playing complementary off-ball roles. For the 5 young guys to play on-ball as much as possible, you need players to be filling in off-ball.

I'd like to see Hayward play with Trey without RJ. Can Hayward be that guy. It's time to find out before we have to decide on the contract.

Can Hayward be what guy? Hayward has played lots of minutes with Trey and without RJ. What are you trying to say here?

 

[GVC]

Sorting itself is all fine, and dandy if this opportunity wasn't in front of us. Where do the vets fit into our future? Is this group as is good enough to compete for a title in 3 years. If not what additions will help that?

What does it matter where the vets fit into the future?

What opportunity are you talking about? No, this group is likely not good enough to compete in 3 years. If this group were losing loads of games, this group plus a top pick would not be good enough to contend in 3 years. Even with the recent success, this group plus a top pick is likely not good enough to contend in 3 years. This is Kevin Durant's 7th year in the league. The Thunder didn't get past the 1st round of the playoffs until his 4th year in the league. It's unlikely anyone in this upcoming draft ends up as good as KD OR Westbrook.

As such, I'm going to hope for good basketball, and enjoy it when it comes. DL did a good job this past summer. It'll be interesting to see what he does over the next 6 months or so.

 

[GVC]

Where does Gobert fit into the future if Marvin is resigned?

Gobert is a late 1st round pick. He's nowhere close to being a decent rotation player in the NBA. In today's NBA, Favors, Kanter AND Gobert are all best suited to play the 5. Hopefully he works out better than Jeremy Evans.

 

[JimLes]

Where does Gobert fit into the future if Marvin is resigned?

Back up centre playing 10-15 minutes a game. Same place he'd fit if we didn't re-sign Marvin.

 

[Hitman]

Yes they are. You don't even understand what your post said. Did you read your own thoughts? For heavens sake son.
You talk about credible outside shooters, and their importance. Then try, and say its ALL the core 5. Oh I agree with you that is
mainly the core 5. doh. In fact the main factor is Trey. He is the glue. He is the driving force. However, if you take out RJ, and Marvin we have more losses. because as you said "Without credible outside shooters, we would be back to where we were 2 years ago, with defences playing "with one foot in the paint". The big men would face endless double-teams in the post and defenders would be free to help off their man whenever we tried to run a pick-and-roll."
If you think differently then what we'll just agree to disagree.

Sigh. I'll try again, since you've missed my point.

The Core 5 are developing because RJ and MW are facilitating them by playing their complementary roles - provide spacing with their outside game, running the offence, being the last option. Take out RJ and MW and we're back to where we were when JLIII was running the show - no spacing, no offence, no more development of the Core 5. Winning is just a side-effect from their development. After waiting years for them to be given this opportunity, do we really want to handicap the Core 5 now?

Also: who says MW isn't going to be back next year? RJ has said he's not coming back, but I haven't seen any indication from either side that MW isn't coming back.

 

[Revolution 9]

Sigh. I'll try again, since you've missed my point.

The Core 5 are developing because RJ and MW are facilitating them by playing their complementary roles - provide spacing with their outside game, running the offence, being the last option. Take out RJ and MW and we're back to where we were when JLIII was running the show - no spacing, no offence, no more development of the Core 5. Winning is just a side-effect from their development. After waiting years for them to be given this opportunity, do we really want to handicap the Core 5 now?

Also: who says MW isn't going to be back next year? RJ has said he's not coming back, but I haven't seen any indication from either side that MW isn't coming back.

Oh stop with your silly banter. I missed the point? I just disagree with you on how valuable an aging vet is, and Marvin Williams to our core's progress. And you made several ridiculous statements I will address below.


Take away RJ, and Marvin, and we are not "back to where we were when JLIII was running the show " Hello. We have Trey Burke.
Getting rid of the RJ, and Marvin won't handicap their development for heaven's sake. They won't shrivel up and die without Richard Jefferson. Get a grip. What they have learned from them won't go away, and be forgotten if we get rid of them. I really don't care that they've been here up until now. I'm saying it's time
to get rid of them, in the least RJ, so we know what we have in Hayward specifically.

The core 5 are developing first and foremost, because they are playing more.

 

[GVC]

I'm saying it's time to get rid of them, in the least RJ, so we know what we have in Hayward specifically.

How does getting rid of RJ help us know what we have in Hayward? Hayward's playing BIG minutes, playing both on- and off-ball, defending both the 2 and 3. Makes no sense.

 

[Hitman]

The core 5 are developing first and foremost, because they are playing more.

Who they play with is just as important. Compare how they played with JLIII and with Trey Burke. It's all about how well the offence runs, and the offence runs well with RJ and MW because of their skillset and attitude. Get rid of them and replace them with inferior players and the Core 5 development stops. But I don't think I can get you to understand this.

 

[Revolution 9]

How does getting rid of RJ help us know what we have in Hayward? Hayward's playing BIG minutes, playing both on- and off-ball, defending both the 2 and 3. Makes no sense.

Nothing to do with his minutes. I want to see if Hayward is enough of a shooting threat, now playing with Trey to draw out people from the paint. I don't think he is. Minor point, but keep picking GVC.

 

[GVC]

Nothing to do with his minutes. I want to see if Hayward is enough of a shooting threat, now playing with Trey to draw out people from the paint. I don't think he is. Minor point, but keep picking GVC.

How is it a minor point? It's THE "specific" reason you stated for trading RJ. Hayward is playing with Trey, and frequently playing off-ball. He also played off-ball the last two seasons, and performed quite well. I don't understand how trading Trey, and giving Hayward no additional minutes, gives the team more information about Gordo. What exactly do you have in mind? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

edit: No one plays more minutes per game with Burke than Hayward...What are you trying to say, Rev?

 

[Revolution 9]

Who they play with is just as important. Compare how they played with JLIII and with Trey Burke. It's all about how well the offence runs, and the offence runs well with RJ and MW because of their skillset and attitude. Get rid of them and replace them with inferior players and the Core 5 development stops. But I don't think I can get you to understand this.

You won't get me to agree with you. It's not about understanding oh great teacher you. It's difference of opinion.
They understand what wins games. It's not like they are rookies. Most of them went to the playoffs. If you put the core 5 out there together they will have to figure it out on their own. That is part of the process they can't skip. Trey, Hayward, and Kanter all have the capacity to hits shots. If they weren't relying on the vets so much we'd see how they adjust. In the meantime getting a great player in the draft. As I've said what these vets have done is debatable. Arguing this is pointless. Where we go from here is what I'm worried about.

 

[fishonjazz]

[/B].


Take away RJ, and Marvin, and we are not "back to where we were when JLIII was running the show " Hello. We have Trey Burke.
[/B]

And jeremy evans and brandon rush and diante garret.

When we were 1-14 the whole team was different, so to say losing marv and jeffy would take us back to what we were in that stretch of the season doesnt make sense.(plus we had jeffy at that point anyway).

If you took away marvin, burke, garret, evans, and rush then we might be like we were early in the season

 

[GVC]

You won't get me to agree with you. It's not about understanding oh great teacher you. It's difference of opinion.
They understand what wins games. It's not like they are rookies. Most of them went to the playoffs. If you put the core 5 out there together they will have to figure it out on their own. That is part of the process they can't skip. Trey, Hayward, and Kanter all have the capacity to hits shots. If they weren't relying on the vets so much we'd see how they adjust. In the meantime getting a great player in the draft. As I've said what these vets have done is debatable. Arguing this is pointless. Where we go from here is what I'm worried about.

In other words, playing time is the only thing that matters for development...

Don't buy it. Pretty much every coach in history doesn't buy it. Sure it's a matter of opinion, but yours is ignorant. Unless you can provide a better argument (or any argument at all), I'll stick with the opinion of experienced, successful coaches.

 

[fishonjazz]

Take out RJ and MW and we're back to where we were when JLIII was running the show -

Really?

burke jeremy evans and brandon rush and diante garret.

When we were 1-14 the whole team was different, so to say losing marv and jeffy would take us back to what we were in that stretch of the season doesnt make sense.(plus we had jeffy at that point anyway).

If you took away marvin, burke, garret, evans, and rush then we might be like we were early in the season

 

[Revolution 9]

How is it a minor point? It's THE "specific" reason you stated for trading RJ. Hayward is playing with Trey, and frequently playing off-ball. He also played off-ball the last two seasons, and performed quite well. I don't understand how trading Trey, and giving Hayward no additional minutes, gives the team more information about Gordo. What exactly do you have in mind? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

edit: No one plays more minutes per game with Burke than Hayward...What are you trying to say, Rev?

WOW chill the **** out. I just threw that in there. Was not important. That is not the major reason I want RJ gone. I was just curious to see if Hayward can fill that role. But I don't care about winning games this year. We disagree on what is the best way to develop this group. Are you trying to fight me? Or are you just incapable of having a discussion?

 

[Revolution 9]

In other words, playing time is the only thing that matters for development...

Don't buy it. Pretty much every coach in history doesn't buy it. Sure it's a matter of opinion, but yours is ignorant. Unless you can provide a better argument (or any argument at all), I'll stick with the opinion of experienced, successful coaches.

I guess not reading, and spouting off insults is a way to debate? Playing time is not the ONLY thing to development. Go back and read, and I'll be here when you are done.

 

[GVC]

WOW chill the **** out. I just threw that in there. Was not important. That is not the major reason I want RJ gone. I was just curious to see if Hayward can fill that role. But I don't care about winning games this year. We disagree on what is the best way to develop this group. Are you trying to fight me? Or are you just incapable of having a discussion?

I'm chill, just trying to understand what you're trying to say.

Specifically, what role are you talking about?

Also:

I'm saying it's time to get rid of them, in the least RJ, so we know what we have in Hayward specifically.

Did I misread this?

I guess not reading, and spouting off insults is a way to debate? Playing time is not the ONLY thing to development. Go back and read, and I'll be here when you are done.

I don't see an insult in that post. I don't understand what exactly Hayward is going to do differently if RJ isn't on the team.

 

[GVC]

So you neg me because you can't explain yourself. Grow up.

 

[GVC]

Just so we're clear, Hayward is second on the team in catch and shoot field goal attempts per game, and first in minutes per game playing with Trey.

Is it fair to say you think Ty should take the ball out of Hayward's hands, and use him exclusively as a spot up shooter now? Haven't we already seen Hayward filling that role well the last couple seasons? Don't you think it might be more valuable to see if he can handle on-ball duties this season?