I really really really want to take a chance on Micheal Beasley
07/31/2014 - 10:35 AM PST
Barnes is an ok starter for now. Nobody left available is better. Then you just hope that one of Dudley or Bullock steps up as a backup, either could happen.
What would be nice is if one our SGs could play SF some, but Redick, Crawford and now Wilcox (and last year Green), are all physically outmatched at SF. If you look at the Spurs pretty much all their SG can slide over to SF as needed.
Beasley is a terrible idea, he couldn't have even crack the playoff rotation for a very thin, desperate Heat team last year.
Marion wouldn't be the worst at minimum, although he's pretty old and is slipping pretty fast. He could easily be Grant Hill part 2 for us.
At this point I think I prefer our scouting department try to find some younger fringe guy that is physical and athletic and give him a try. When the Spurs gave Danny Green and Patty Mills a shot they were basically nobodies. Grab some guy in the D-League or Europe or locked to an NBA bench and see if they can step up, there is way more upside in that, than settling for a mediocre minimum salary veteran, and if you decide in the end you want an old guy instead usually there are usually plenty available after trade deadline cuts.
07/31/2014 - 10:46 AM PST
Its Jamals fault that we are out of the playoffs and if we would've signed Ray Allen we wouldn't have been a top 4 seed the past 2 years. Just pure insanity ....
07/31/2014 - 10:59 AM PST
SF at this point is really a minute issue at this point because we didn't lose in the playoffs because of our play at SF. It would be nice to have a better one if we could get one but outside of the Sterling weight dropped on this teams shoulders we went into the second round without home court and one a game on the Thunders floor and then flat out gave them another one. This team needs a bounce or two to go their way and then we find out that Blake had a fractured back in the playoffs.
We should always keep our eyes open for a young stud at SF if we can get him but I would love to simply have one of those injury free runs through a season because I think that would have just as big of a impact next season.
07/31/2014 - 11:11 AM PST
If you seriously think we're not going to have the same exact result come playoff time without any wing that can even slow down Durant, Kawhi, Parsons, Batum, or Iguodala, I don't know what to tell you.
07/31/2014 - 11:13 AM PST
I didn't say it was all his fault but his chucking was a big reason we lost. He was flat-out brutal in Game 5. He also never shows up in the postseason, whereas Ray Allen actually does (see: Game 6 of the 2013 Finals).
07/31/2014 - 11:14 AM PST
Beasley is the rare player who would make our already league-worst SF rotation worse.
07/31/2014 - 11:15 AM PST
CTB MVP X2
07/31/2014 - 11:38 AM PST
Did our SF's date your sister or something? You hate them deeply man, way more than warranted. Matt Barnes is an average SF and Dudley has been slightly above average through his career and he had a below average year last year, while playing through knee tendonitis. In a salary capped league, you can't be great at every position! We're outstanding at PG, PF & 6th man, we're pretty above average at SG, C & Backup C, we're average/below average at SF... CRY ME A RIVER! Stop whining dude. Durant isn't even the reason we went home, he was gonna get his if we had any SF not named Tony Allen or LeBron James. We lost because Westbrook played out of his mind & CP had some brain-farts. Focusing on our one weak position w/o acknowledging that we're strong at like 6 other spots is spoiled and irresponsible. Miami's big 3 had Chalmers and Joel Anthony starting when they came together man! And why are you bringing up Iguodala like he destroyed us or something?
07/31/2014 - 11:46 AM PST
Ray wouldn't be as valuable without a Rondo or LeBron or CP3 on the floor. We need Jamal's skill set because it gives CP3 a rest, his game is independent which helps a score-first backup PG, which most backup PG's are.
07/31/2014 - 12:27 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
We aren't going to have amazing players at all 5 positions. Look at San Antonio - Tiago Splitter is a little things guy. He isn't a star. Miami - Mario Chalmers , Udonis Haslem, those....
Do agree though we are find over all. Things may/could change at the SF position at the trade deadline.
07/31/2014 - 02:47 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
This team isn't devoid in talent, the team is just devoid of balance. We actually helped balance the big man position because a compliment that this team has needed since Blake and DJ were paired is a big man that can shoot. SG and SF, sure, more talent at SF would be nice, but SG isn't about talent, it is about the type of players. Jamal and Redick are nice for offense, but they aren't players who cover up each other's weaknesses, and neither is very capable on defense.
Dudley and Barnes, again, even if Dudley is playing great, before we signed Barnes last season, my thought was still pairing Dudley with a more athletic, long and defensive SF. You can't have a start everywhere, that's what the salary cap aims to do, but one thing that is certainly helpful is balance, and the team is at the border with that. Just need to switch some of our offense to gives who are average to above average offense but good to very good defense.
Jamal is what he is, we knew this coming in, so we can't start acting like something new happened. Jamal will have struggles against good defenses, and yes, because his primary skill and impact is scoring, and he struggles with doing much else consistently if not scoring on offense, and obviously he's not a high impact defender, he becomes a net negative player when he can't score well. It is the reality, we didn't just find this out, it was known, it is why he wasn't as sought after in the market when he was a FA as he might have been if he expanded his game more.
Jamal has been in 7 playoff series', and objectively, he's had 2 good playoff series, vs Orlando, and this year vs Golden State, and production wise, they were not just good, but very good for him. The problem is that he has done that 2/7 times, the problem is that he can't consistently do that. The problem is that Jamal is more likely to have a TS% under .500 (4/7 times) than to score effectively. The larger problem is that Jamal brings nothing else to the table at a high level when he doesn't score, but WE KNEW THIS!
At his best, and that is best, Jamal overall as a defender ends up close to a net zero, he isn't a positive or specifically negative defender at his best, most times he's at least a little negative, but not so bad where you're going to get killed for it. At his best, Jamal is a positive offensive player, but tough defense is tough defense, and against tough defense in the playoffs, Jamal is just not nearly as productive and in some series because of him being on dimensional but having a game that uses possessions, he hurts your offense. In those cases, Jamal can and does up being a negative offensive player for a team like the Clippers because he brings negative on court value.
It's a mixture of the nature of his offense which is primarily geared to getting him shots, not improving the teams offense for the most part unless he is scoring and his defense not being imapctful. Obviously contrast that to CP3, or Blake Griffin or the high level players, and they impact even when they don't score. You can see this in high level role players too, for example, something people don't notice is positive to offense about Griffin, and some Clippers fans even call "being passive" is how good he can be for ball movement:
In that clip, it isn't just Blake, it is all of those guys to some extent, they are all guys that move the ball, post up, hand off, screen, gets the ball back, pass, screen, gets the ball back, pass, screen, that's a guy playing team offense. (btw this is something we are going to like about Hawes as he is similar to Griffin in that). You see how the offense looks so nice because of it? Jamal can't bring that element to a team, it's not his way of playing, and that's fine. Okay, he can't do that, but what else? Well, Jamal also isn't a special playmaker like a Ginobili. Jamal has had 5+ assists in 3/42 career playoff games, that's not to say "oh look at him", but that's saying, this isn't his game while for someone like Manu, it is:
So if he's missing, he doesn't contribute to offense by consistently sucking in defenders and even if you don't get the assist, moving the defense. That's one extra element of playing a team offense oriented game, more of a read/react and drive/dish offense, obviously you're doing it enough and you'll get assists, but even if you don't, you suck in defenders, move the defense and get guys out of position.
Some people make it seem like Jamal's iso ability is a bad thing, but it isn't, Jamal's problem as an offensive impact player isn't that he can iso, it is that he is a high usage player who doesn't do the other things that helps a team offense. If Jamal moved the ball like a Blake and/or was a playmaker off the pick and roll or drive and dish, AND had his iso ability, first of all, it probably changes his shot selection in that he'll be able to find himself a similar amount of shots, but a few better ones here and there, and secondly, it takes away the current limit of his offensive impact which is just scoring. He becomes a multi-faceted offensive player.
It's why people were saying Diaw is killing it on offense for the Spurs in the last 2-3 games vs Miami when he didn't even score in double digits once. It is because Diaw does this:
...and that is far more beneficial to a teams offense than a guy who scores 22 pts on 17 FGA with 2 assists.
So basically it comes down to this (if there is an option). Jamal probably about 60% of the time is going to end up being a negative impact player in a playoff series for this team because the West is loaded with these teams with guys that can guard his position, and he will use a lot of possessions inefficiently, won't make up offensive impact in any way and won't impact defense, so he nets as a negative. Even without having another scoring option, Paul, Blake, the "average offense replacement" and the rest would end up outproducing Jamal's individual offense (they won't produce 46% TS for the team). Obviously we should be getting a more defensive player to replace Jamal in the future, but if the player was a net zero on offense (as opposed to negative), and a positive on defense, we end up in the plus. I think this is always the hard thing for people to wrap their heads around, which is that for the TEAM, a players individual scoring and scoring ability doesn't always necessarily benefit an offense. On a good team, an average offensive player in certain roles can help the offense more than a better individual offensive player, and team wise, depending on what else that player does (defense, rebounding, playmaking, ball movement, hustle, etc), they can be more beneficial all together.
What the team needs most if Jamal goes is playmaking off the bench, and it doesn't need to be just one guy, it can be multiple guys. I like that Hawes is a guy you can run a high post offense through, so that helps, Farmar is a fence guy as to whether he can do it effectively. This is where a guy like an Evan Turner wouldn't be bad if he let go of the scoring and was a playmaker / defender. Of course it's going to be tough to sell a player on that, but Turner could find his maximal usefulness for good NBA teams being a playmaker off the bench who's only scoring like 10-11 pts/36, so he's not using a lot of possessions trying to score, but maybe he could up his assist rate.
The issue isn't so much Jamal himself, it is in the team building that we are giving Jamal a role that really in the playoffs he's just not going to be reliable to produce well for you. Of course that is Jamal's skills, and you can't give him another role, and that's sort of why in terms of getting production and/or positive impact from him consistently in the playoffs, it's not likely to happen.
07/31/2014 - 06:54 PM PST
How was he brutal in game 5 when he had half of our 4th quarter points. jamal came in the 3rd we had a 3 pt lead and his scoring pushed us to a double digit lead and he basically handed CP a 7 pt lead with 3 minutes left in the game?
How did he not show up this postseason? Again you didn't say he had a bad game you said he NEVER shows up. Jamal comes off the bench and in the GS series his scoring went 9,9,13,26,19,19,22 again this is a bench player not showing up to you. In the OKC series he went 17,7,20,18,19,4 again this is a bench p[layer never showing up in the playoffs. You pick one game from Ray allen to demonstrate that Ray Allen showed up.
07/31/2014 - 07:38 PM PST
This is too long and honestly quite ridiculous because you ignore the facts like that its not that jamal can't do anything else is what he is asked to do. You post silly clips of Diaw when Diaw is not asked to do the same thing in any way form or fashion that Jamal is asked to do. No one can be reliable in the role that jamal is placed in and the coaches know that. The difference is that Jamal will accept responsibility good or bad and even when things are at the worst he won't run from it which most starters in the NBA still have trouble not doing.
This notion that if Jamal is not scoring he can't help the offense is based on principles that continue to ignore the reality of the situation as well the fact that we have seen jamal consistently do other things when needed like when CP was out and he was more of a playmaker but he also was in the starting lineup with Blake and then later was on the floor with Blake and JJ not playing the majority of his minutes with bench guys who could not throw it in the ocean. But in the playoffs we can't ignore that
Jamal was returning from injury and his minutes were already cut
he played most of his minutes with the bench guys when in the regular season he played more with the starters
No bench guys could make shots
The only two players doc trusted off the bench were Jamal and Darren so even if Doc decided to call a play for someone else besides those two they couldn't deliver at all and he knew this. This notion that jamal is a negative because we are forced to lean on him too much it doesn't even make sense.
that leads me to the manu clips Jamal can't drive and kick or can't create is simply not true and totally ignores that the Clippers bench in the playoffs simply couldn't make shots which puts even pressure on jamal to have to generate points when CP and Blake sits. I find the Spurs to be a lollipop dream that stat guys like to run and post clips of all the time but they ignore things like the Spurs have been together for a decade or more and they loaded up on guys who can make wide open shots. The unintentional claim that the only reason guys like Dudley don't make shots is because jamal doesn't pass him the ball is far fetched even for a BBall site.
I could go on and on about this stuff its pointless because you believe jamal is negative nothing is gonna change that but claiming look at the Spurs and painting jamal as the reason we can't play like that is . CP has yet to show that is willing to give up the rock the way Parker does in that Clip even with the starters of which Jamal is not and the Spurs have several bigs that can make jump shots and they all finish well within 5 ft of the basket without it being a dunk of which Blake is the only player we have that can do that (and now hawes hopefully ).
But to be honest we can't be like the Spurs because we don't have 10 years of continuity to get there and to try and compare us after 8 months with them after 10 years is simply reaching .
07/31/2014 - 08:32 PM PST
Tiago Splitter is a far superior player to Barnes or Dudley. Haslem actually contributed to a championship team in 2006. Rio is the only one of those players on Barnes and Dudley's level and his suckitude is part of what cost Miami a championship this year.
07/31/2014 - 08:42 PM PST
He was brutal in Game 5 because he missed 15 of his 19 shots when he wasn't fouled, often completely ignoring CP3 and Blake in order to chuck up bricks. He chucked up a terrible heat-check shot with time left on the clock with about three minutes left in the game to start off the choke. Then he looked off CP3 and bricked a bunny layup with 30 seconds left. His nuthuggers were just too blinded by his three and-ones that game to notice.
He does disappear in the playoffs, too. He can't even crack 40% shooting against playoff defenses for his career, any semblance of ball movement dies whenever he checks into the game, and his PPG always sharply declines from the regular season to the playoffs. Considering that volume scoring is the only skill he brings to the table since he can't defend or rebound, that's the definition of a vanishing act.
07/31/2014 - 11:00 PM PST
but he was fouled the fact that you want to eliminate that just to form your argument shows you are reaching to even try and make it.
When was he completely ignoring Blake and CP you are simply making this stuff up.
Jamal took a three with 3:30 left in the game with second left on the clock how is that a heat check? You are simply making this stuff up nevermind that jamal had 9 of our 15 points in the quarter and had just made a three on the previous possessions when he took that shot.
Looked off CP3? jamal has made plenty of big shots in the 4th quarter and someone you are criticizing him for getting a great shot that simply missed. Again this is epic fail. Who is his nuthuggers? who is blind to what? you are spouting stuff that is simply is not true and you are making up to push along a ridiculous argument.
So now if you don't shoot a good percentage in a the playoffs that means you disappeared? WHAT !!!!!!!!!This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that there is little truth to your argument. So now when he is in the game we don't have ball movement. Again I've already shown where Crawford played fewer minutes than the regular season and he was playing primarily with the bench as everyone else was struggling. the ball moved just fine the bench simply couldn't make shots and I'm going to wait on you to explain how Dudley and Granger were making shots left and right but jamal wouldn't feed them.
If you are a not good defender or rebounder that means you vanish? what? Jamal averaged 15 ppg down from 18 ppg in the regular season although he was playing about 7 -8 fewer minutes and with fewer minutes with the starters
I'm not even arguing jamal was great I'm just saying that just because its the offseason does not mean you can rewrite the past and just start making stuff up as if nobody else watches the games. The claim that somehow Ray Allen gets us a title and the only reason we lost is because jamal chucked up shots.
07/31/2014 - 11:30 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
I think Jamal is just an scapegoat for many. Okay Game 5 Jamal was like 7 for 22 , but he went off in 4th to help us gain our lead. Okay. Is everyone just....
crawford was an asset in the playoffs..without his scoring we would not have beaten oklahoma in game ..oh,i forgot..paul choked the game away..
08/01/2014 - 01:48 AM PST
CTB MVP X1
Okay? So you agree that we're giving Jamal a role that he can't effectively fulfill on a consistent basis in the playoffs. So either we change the role or we change our approach and get a player who we are asking to fulfill a different role that he is more capable of achieving consistently. Yea, we shouldn't be using Jamal as this go out and shoot all you want off the bench option, and if we are going to do that, he will not be positive on offense in most games in the playoffs, but is that really the issue?
"Jamal played most of his minutes with the bench guys" - True of false?
Jamal played 313 minutes in the playoffs, 203 of those minutes were with Blake on the floor, which is 65% of his minutes. Jamal played 196 minutes with Collison, 115 of those minutes also had Blake on the floor with them. Jamal played 190 minutes with Paul, and 136 of those minutes had Blake on the court. The two players he was on the court with together the most in the playoffs were Paul and Griffin, 136 minutes with both of them on. So he played another 67 minutes with just Blake and another 54 minutes with just Paul. So in total 257 of his on court minutes (82.1%) had either Paul or Griffin or both on the floor with him.
Okay, so with that, we are asking Jamal to play about 4 MPG with Darren Collison, Glen Davis and a sucky Dudley or washed up Granger as the other offensive options, and 20 minutes with either Blake or Paul on the floor, about 9 with both. Is that really a role that "no one can be reliable in"? In Atlanta he was also playing with the starters. 09-10, 268/350 minutes (77%) had Joe Johnson, 10-11 297/358 minutes (83%) had Joe Johnson. vs Memphis 103/162 minutes (64%) had Paul and of course there was also Bledsoe.
Implication: Jamal is only shooting so much because he is with bench guys
Well obviously since we just found out that 82% of the time in the playoffs, either Paul or Blake was with him, that's obviously not true. He should shoot more with the bench though, but Davis can make shots outside of 5 feet and can finish and actually Paul found him for a lot of good baskets in the playoffs.
I'm not saying Jamal CAN'T pass. Jamal has those stretches every year. The problem is that Jamal is not a consistent playmaker. You see Jamal is the type of player that should consistently be a high level playmaker skill wise not when Paul is out, always, but he isn't because he can't maintain it, it isn't his game. It has nothing to do with inability and all to do with mentality. I chose my worse carefully. I used the qualifying phrase of "consistently", and that's the problem with Jamal with those things, consistency. You shots won't always fall, and for him scoring certainly not always come efficiently. If despite that, there is something (defense, passing etc) that he does consistently, not only does it make him a higher impact player on the average night, it makes him able to have impact more often when his shot isn't falling. If you want to argue that Jamal does something else consistently, I don't know where the proof for that lies, but maybe there is.
"Well Paul doesn't give him the ball", Paul was third in the league in passes made, he was third in touches per game at 94.6 touches, but only had 7.1 minutes of total on ball time in 35.3 mpg which was 5th in the league right after Mike Conley who had 7.3 minutes of on ball time in 33.4 mpg. PG's hold the ball a lot because they bring up the ball, set up the offense, hold the ball to throw post entry passes many times, etc. Parker had 6.0 minutes of on ball time in 29.5 mpg (20.3% of his minutes). Paul's 7.1 minutes in 35.3 mpg is 20.1% of his minutes, so basically the same percentage of on court time on the ball. Parker had 2.6 touches per minute, Paul had 2.7 touches per minute. Paul had the ball in his hands the same percentage of time he was on the court in comparison to Parker, a similar amount of touches but he made 2.0 passes per minute to Parker's 1.87 passes per minute. So for every 30 minutes, Paul makes 4 more passes than Parker.
There is the perception vs reality thanks for tracking data because of course we can always say anything, but who verifies whether it is true or not, my biased memory of how the games are happening or actual tracking. Paul doesn't hold the ball any more or pass less or whatever else one wants to say than a guy like Parker does.
"Notion that Jamal is a negative"
Again, you can't gloss over the context and the key words. Jamal isn't a negative in a vacuum, Jamal isn't a negative when his shots are falling (duh). In the playoffs, against good defenses, when his shots aren't falling, Jamal becomes a negative in comparison to an average offense / good defense replacement player who plays defense. The obvious issue as we can see statistically is that his shot not falling (or falling well) either in individual games or over a series is a very common occurrence. Why can this "replacement" player help? Jamal is on the floor 82% of the time with Blake and Paul in the playoffs (20/24 mins). vs GSW, he kills it. vs OKC, he's not so good. That means 82% of the time if we're going by last season, when he was on, there was at least two other playmakers on the floor and only him and Collison for like 4 minutes. A replacement player in Jamal's role who is a 14-15 pts/36 guy as opposed to 19-20 like Jamal, so less usage but can defend. If you run an offense with that guy and use the playmakers you do have, you can produce equal team offense to what Jamal gives you in a series vs OKC (85 pts on 85 FGA, 2-3 assists and about 0.95 pts/possession) by spreading the extra possessions among everyone. Even the terrible Sixers produced 0.99 pts/possession vs the league, against a better team, down to 0.95 pts/possession, So at worst, you're even offensively with this guy and we're assuming this player brings more to the table as a rebounder and defender unless what would be the point of the player?
Now of course the question is "where do you get the production Jamal gave vs GS from", and that you can't answer, but that's when you gauge streakiness vs consistency and also look at whether those other areas the player brings can make up on the other end, etc.
Passing to bad shooters
I don't know what all the being like the Spurs stuff is, I'm talking about what Manu does when he's playing with the starters. Look, I've already said many times that in the regular season, a guy like Jamal who is playing >24 MPG is playing more minutes with starters than with bench players anyways. I think you're talking to JQuick with all that bad players making shots because Jamal passes now. I've never suggested that Jamal should be passing to sucky player more to somehow save the offense, but I don't think the offense needs saving. It's not even about Jamal himself and more about the need for defense. Really this wouldn't be an issue if instead of Redick, we had a defensive guy starting at SG, then we would need/want a guy like Jamal, but Jamal and Redick whether they push themselves in practice and love each other are just not a balanced combination of SG's.
The Spurs stuff isn't important, what is important is the mentality. The Spurs bench hasn't always looked like this, but Manu never stopped being a playmaker because of that, Jamal is just not a natural playmaker, which is why playmaking at a high level comes and goes for him. Not sure why you ran off with the Spurs stuff, those were just examples, you can use Vince Carter, Reggie Jackson you could even use some other guys with questionable decision making like Sessions, Tyreke Evans, Lou Williams, James Johnson, you could use Udrih but he's a PG more so, even hero ball Mo Williams. I used Manu because it is easy to find a video, but also because I said consistent high level playmaking, setting the bar a little high.
This isn't about how we can be the Spurs, this is about the fact that the team needs better balance, and Jamal and Redick are just not a balanced combination of SG's, too much offense and not enough defense. This is about the fact that Jamal can't sustain effective high usage play in the playoffs. The clips are saying if he can do these things consistently, not with the bench, just in general, it would help remedy having negative offensive impact when he can't hit shots. His playoff career of 42 games, 15 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.3 apg, 38.6% FG, 34.1% 3PT, .514 TS%. That's really not going to be good enough for us to play him 25 MPG over multiple series' and give him that role and that many possessions during that time UNLESS we are playing elite defense also and the requirement for offensive efficiency to be produced to win is lowered since we are limiting the opposition more. His 3 series Clipper playoff career: 14.1 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 tpg, 39.5% FG, 32.7% 3PT, .519 TS%.
08/01/2014 - 02:23 AM PST
That Is a long ass post that i started to read and realized how long it was. ANYWAYS! I really wish people would stop trying to compare us to the spurs. We aren't the Spurs. We won't be the spurs EVER, unless you change fan bases and then your "we" could be the spurs. We are the Clippers. We are Blake Griffin and Chris Paul. They won't ever be Tony Parker or Tim Duncan. We shouldn't be trying to emulate someone else's success. Rather trying to perfect our own.
The Heat won 3 times in the last decade and weren't ever the Spurs. The Lakers have never been the Spurs. The Mavs definitely weren't the spurs when they won. IF we win it will be playing Clipper Basketball. We won't be doing it the Boston Celtics way just bc we have Doc. JJ will play the JJ role not the Ray Allen role. Everyone here needs to realize that what works one place doesn't work other places.
08/01/2014 - 02:59 AM PST
What is it that you think the Spurs are? They have won 5 NBA championships in their franchise history. And until they drafted David Robinson, they were one of the worst teams for many years. The Lakers have 16 championships so I'm not sure how they are not the Spurs. Do you mean the Spurs are not the Lakers? Both Kobe and Derek Fisher have as many championship rings on the Lakers as the Spurs entire organization.
08/01/2014 - 09:25 AM PST
CTB MVP X1
I think fullcourt thought that because I used examples of Spurs players I was saying we need to be them. They were examples that were easy to find. Diaw could be McRoberts in the example, Manu could be Tyreke. Has nothing to do with the specific player or team just a mentality.
Blake can't be Duncan, he needs different compliment players. Like the Spurs we benefit from a shooting big, but we needed a shooting PF/C not strict PF because Blake can't slide over to C and anchor a defense like Duncan. This was obvious since we got Paul, that's why I've wanted Frye since day 1, why before we realized Okur was done, I thought he could be a good complimentary backup big, why I really like the Hawes singning. Yes, Blake's improved ability is going to be primarily on his skills, but Blake has yet to play with a consistent shooting big who teams stick to. Blake has yet to play in that spread offense set up.
Like every team we need scoring and play making off the bench for the couple of minutes no starter is on the floor, whether it comes mainly from one or two players or spread among different players, who cares. Like all great teams, to maximize our chances we need defense, so we have to continually examine how we balance defense and offense and see what is necessary vs what is a luxury or where we can make calculated swaps of offense for defense or vice versa (if we were the Pacers for example).
All this isn't to say that there aren't elements of the Spurs setup that are good for us, there are, they are a good model as we have some similar players. The Suns on offense are a good model, and Gentry brought some of that and Amare on offense as a scorer was a good model for Blake and having up more brought some of that.
08/01/2014 - 12:17 PM PST
Agent has been trying to sell this "Jamal is not a positive" on the court and at best he is "neutral" for quite sometime, but I'm not buying it. Jamal is clearly a positive impact on the team and the outcome of games.
Agent uses all these "stats", but we all know you can find any "stats" to support your claim. What stat's don't show is crunch time, critical stretches, shot clock winding down, etc...
For example trying to say Jamal played with starters 82% of the time because he was on the floor with Blake and/or Cp3 is another way to misuse facts. Just because cp3 is on the floor doesn't mean Jamal ISNT playing with mostly bench players. At the same time cp3 is on the floor so was granger/dudley, big baby/hollins, mullens/jamison. At the same time Jamal was playing with blake he was also playing with Collison, Granger, and big baby.
Just because Doc leaves one starter on the floor doesn't mean you can say Jamal is playing with "starters" most of the time. That is misleading and untrue.
08/01/2014 - 12:41 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
Oy, problem is you not reading it well here Postman. I didn't say Jamal plays with every other player on the floor as starters, fullcourt said he didn't play much with any starters to imply that his minutes mainly came with all bench units where there's was no choice but to play a certain way. This is why he emphasized only Collison and Jamal being trusted. Of course in the playoffs, he was only on the court for an average of 4 mpg with such bench only units, so the implication that having to play with all bench units and take bad shots due to that is just not true. I said he is with a starter (not all), and I specifically identified the star guys because they are the ones that should relieve having to force shots up, playing with DJ vs Hollins or Davis means nothing on offense, DJ isn't really better than those guys on offense, certainly not Davis. 43-45% of his minutes we with both Blake and Paul and another 37-39% with one or the other.
I'm pushing that in the playoffs, a player like Jamal has a limit in value to this team in the role he's given and as this team is built. Stats actually do show many of those things, and why would I trust yours or my own or really anyone's selective or biased memory of things like that? Never understood this. I watch a lot of film, I have services to do so, so the fake argument of watching games and players fails. Stats need to be interpreted, they can't say whatever you want them to and it will be clear if they are being twisted to say something they aren't. You can find any stats to support your claim is a cop out argument for I have nothing but my opinion with no factual support. Remember I am putting qualifying statements here, not absolutes, playoffs, vs tough teams, playing in the role he plays, Jamal is not consistently effective and can be negative when he's missing a lot but shooting a lot while doing nothing else, it's the reality.
Jamal was on the court 65% of his minutes in the playoffs with one of these 2 three man lineups. Paul/Crawford/Griffin or Collison/Crawford/Griffin, another 17% of his minutes had some combination of lineups with Paul but no Griffin. fullcourt was presenting the plight of Jamal as him playing MOST of his minutes with just bench guys the only option was for him to iso and chuck up shots, which would be somewhat true if that was the situation, but it wasn't.
Btw, if Jamal and Redick were the same age I would be fine with trading Redick, but Jamal is old and his value is only going downhill from here. The pairing is just not a balanced pairing. If you want to argue that Redick is the one that should be moved, be my guest, but he's younger, and he was specifically a guy Doc brought in, and he's been year just part of one season and was good in the playoffs, so it's hard to imagine he'd be moved.
My problem isn't with Jamal, it is with Jamal and Redick on the same team, but yes, I do believe in the role Jamal has become accustomed to, he becomes too inconsistent a player in the post-season as can be seen over his 7 career playoff series, though he is a very nice player to have in the regular season, and though he can still get hot and have great series'.
08/01/2014 - 03:05 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
Oh. I wish people would understand what comparisons are. No One is saying we are the Spurs. No One is saying Blake Griffin is Tim Duncan. I think what most , including myself, are saying....
one thing you fail to mention about the Spurs is all their wings can cut and get to the rim. Their wings put more pressure on you because they look to attack the rim for layups which opens up more. We have to have a wing that can attack the rim. JCraw attacks but his attacks is looking for an outside shot.
08/02/2014 - 12:15 AM PST
CTB MVP X2
Here's some Jamal crunch time stats for you to digest:
Both show where Jamal "stood" in those categories you said "what the stats don't show you". They show plenty.
08/02/2014 - 11:21 PM PST
Clipper D-League Pickup
It's too bad we weren't able to resign Danny Granger this summer, although he's just recovering from injuries and age I really liked what I saw from him in the games he played fro the clips. As you can remember he used to be an all star and an excellent scorer prior to his injuries and he provided strong scoring off the bench this year but is also unselfish with his shooting and seemed to be ok with just letting the play flow and not forcing his shots unlike Jamal who seemed to always need to get his shots off (not a shot at Jamal, just making a point) I know Danny wasn't the strongest on defense but he has a large upside on the offensive end and I think he's got about 2-3 more years of strong play left in him.
I was at the back to back games vs the suns then the warriors and I tracked him down every minute he was on the court and was quite impressed, but that's just my two cents, what do you all think?
08/02/2014 - 11:23 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
I said , I think if Danny and Big Baby got full training camps, etc. they would be really good for us.
08/03/2014 - 04:31 PM PST
CTB MVP X1
I can see why we passed. Outside of the minimum, we had the BAE and MLE, one went to Farmar (we needed a backup PG), and one went to Hawes (we needed a 3PT shooting big, especially a PF/C). Granger is getting the BAE from Miami, so getting him and hoping he's better while we do still have Barnes and what should be a healthier Dudley wasn't worth not filling those other needs.
Baby I'm good with. He's actually a quite solid 4th big to have and I prefer him much more at PF than at C where while he won't get pushed around, he just doesn't have the length. Hopefully his cardio is better, I know he won't ever look in shape, but usually he's in good enough shape cardiovascular wise without looking lean. He's nice on offense for pick and pop and setting screens, and he's actually not a bad defender.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum