LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So..... Can way say that bench assignment is not the best way to develop talent..??
- Thread starter Hotdog
- Start date
I wish I was surprised at that.
Since when did film capture things in the way a live human eye can? Film is better at some things, but worse at others.
Film is actually better, because you aren't watching it from your limited view on the bench, you can rewind, forward, dissect it with others, etc...
Yes, those would be among the "some things" that film is better at.
This is going to stretch you, but I'm going to ask you to post something of actual substance: What advantages can you gain from watching on the bench that you can't otherwise get by observing from film?
Last edited:
The only reason that the Jazz refused to give The Four any real responsibility that makes sense to me is that the organization knew how bad they'd be if they stunted their growth, then suddenly pulled the rug out from under them right before a great draft. Otherwise, I have no idea why they didn't try to dump Jefferson right after getting swept or right before the All-Star break.
Millsap would improve this team immensely but I know that's not really the point.
To reply more directly to the topic, I think that's fair to say. That, or Corbin just isn't very good at player development.
Millsap would improve this team immensely but I know that's not really the point.
To reply more directly to the topic, I think that's fair to say. That, or Corbin just isn't very good at player development.
Based on your posting history, you understanding something of substance would be a greater stretch.
Eyes are more active than a camera. They can change focus more quickly, follow side effects better, your head and eyes can make small adjustments in perspective, etc. The other senses keep you more involved in the moment as well; you have the echos of each squeak coming at you from all sides, instead just from the speakers.
Putting this another way, how many fans feel watching a game on TV is just like being there in the stadium? Why would it be different for a player?
You're assuming the organization agrees with you that their growth has been stunted.
lol
All other things being equal, I wonder who's going to end up better off - Player A who watches the same game film over and over and actually playing a lot more, or Player B who watches from the bench more and doesn't play as much. It doesn't take much intelligence to go with Player A, but I guess that's why you're going with Player B.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Willful ignorance + low intelligence + condescension = The Norm...you're special, dude.
I agree they should have moved Jefferson, but we'll never know how hard they tried or what deals were out there. I don't think we can assume they didn't try just because a deal didn't get done. I don't think teams were all that anxious to give away picks in the 2012 draft. I do wonder though if Lindsey would have done things differently.
.
Corbin may well suck at player development but to be fair it's not his highest priority. His primary job is to win games. If the young guys can help him win they play, if not, they sit. Sloan was no different. I also think fans tend to overestimate the potential of young players (see C. J. Miles) and think if a player doesn't reach some hyped up potential it's the coach's fault.
Kanter would have been ruined had Corbin not brought him along at a pace commensurate with his growing abilities. Look how timid he is this season and imagine how much worse he would have been two season ago.
Your playing time concept is fools gold.
GVC
Well-Known Member
They've already been mentioned in this thread. Putting players in a position to succeed helps a player build confidence AND learn to play the right way. Throwing a player into situations that he's not ready for may hurt his confidence and reinforce bad habits (especially if high minutes are guaranteed). Further, you can't possibly get a good feel for the pace or emotion of a game from film. Teaching moments in real time are invaluable.
It's probably also worth mentioning that these guys are playing roughly every other day, and travelling to half their games. They probably aren't getting as much one-on-one film time, group film time, and individual and group practice in-season as you think.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I like your point, but I'm not sure you need to give Corbin too much credit. The whole league knew Enes was a project.
You hit on the whole point of this topic. Kanter's in his 3rd NBA season and still timid as hell. All that sitting on the bench didn't do much to shake that out of him.
And yet Kanter still doesn't look like he knows what the hell he's doing, and Burks and Favors are playing the same way they've always played. The only player who's shown major improvement is Hayward... and incidentally, he's also the only one who's had regular playing time for most of his career.
What stops Player B from watching game film as well as watching in real time? Do you ever use arguments not based on a false dichotomy?
Assuming Player B is also watching film as well as the game in real time, it's much more about who A and B are, and where they are in their development. Only a fool thinks the answer should be the same for every player, every game. Thus, The Norm.
Perhaps for you players are just cogs you plug in and pull out. I think even coaches as defective as Corbin know better, and treat them as people.
That's not what the time on the bench was for.