Jeff Teague

[Joker]

First of all, i'm not SVG but I know basketball so don't rush to any conclusions. Now, I wouldn't say it's not an example of not knowing basketball, i'd say it's more of evaluating talent. He's not there yet but he has the tools all he has to do is work on his court vision and apply himself to make that next step.

You are what you are in terms of court vision and Jeff only has it when slashing. Amazingly terrible court vision when he's not. Jeff can't run an offense. In fact, Joe is better in this arena. Jeff scoring skills is just solid, not good, not very good, and for sure not elite. Nothing about him says he has the tools to be more than a great 6th man. Nothing about him does. The only hope is if he playing with a big who you can run the offense through and even then he still needs to be at the very most a 3rd option on offense.Please tell me his tools that you are gloating about that can make him into a top 5 PG?

[AHF]

I don't think Teague has a prayer of being a top 5 PG and is very unlikely to be a top 10 guy. He does, however, have the ability to turn into a very useful player on both ends of the floor and he is starting to show some results in his play. The fact that he has stepped up in two big series for the Hawks in the playoffs helps color the perception of him as a guy with higher potential than he actually has because of the big moment. It is surely better than not performing but with the same regular season performance, a lot of the people wouldn't be very excited with him if he just carried that over to the post-season. He still has a long way to go to be a plus PG but I think he is much better than the lost cause that Teague's most vocal critic on this site sees.If you look at a different position, I see him as being like a Luis Scola/Serge Ibaka type of upside - guys who will never be true stars and who will always have some limitations but who can be very good contributors. He is making progress this season toward that but isn't a no-brainer type of player for me over the long-term.

[Joker]

Ibaka and Scola are bigs. They can have major flaws as well as major strengths and can play due to their position and their impact. Jeff is a PG, he doesn't have the same luxuries as those two. He needs to be able have a fundamental balance or else he is coming off the bench.Ibaka is a heavily flawed big. He doesn't do anything on offense but rebound and has solid BBIQ and on defense, he is an off the ball monster. He can also defeat his position as well. Being heavily flawed at PG and being heavily flawed at PF is not the same thing just due to your responsibilty and your positional competition. If you start Jeff Teague, you making it known, you will be outplayed at PG more times than not and it doesn't matter who the component is.Examples are Rondo looking like Magic before Game 5 in this seriesLin looking lke Rose v. TeagueBaron Davis 50 year old washed up self looking like NO Baron Davis when he was known as B-Diddy.Jameer looking amazing as well.Mo Williams killed Jeff.The names go on and on.

Edited May 9, 2012 by nbasuperstar40

[Dragitoff]

My gripe with this whole OP (as with almost every one of NBAsuperstar's posts) is that you say you don't like someone and list people whom you feel is better; however you haven't given the full rationale of how you'd aquire those people, pay them, and what you'd do to fill the other roles. Under the current financial restraints, we have a bigger need at SF (if we move Joe back to SG) and a true post up/back to the basket kind of player. Does Jeff has flaws? Sure he does. ANYONE you bring in will have them. Would you rather see us bring in a guy that has slightly fewer flaws by creating a bigger hole in our team by dealing someone like Josh or Al? Your reasoning seems biased and a personal attack on Teague. Josh has flaws. Joe has flaws. Al has flaws. Kobe has flaws. Lebron has flaws. They all do. I'll take a player that has some flaws that is showing the ability to be a solid contributor at their position and is making a small % of what the others on your list are making vs. creating a huge gaping hole in other areas or not using what resources we have to shore up the areas which are more pressing.

[AHF]

Ibaka and Scola are bigs. They can have major flaws as well as major strengths and can play due to their position and their impact. Jeff is a PG, he doesn't have the same luxuries as those two. He needs to be able have a fundamental balance or else he is coming off the bench.Ibaka is a heavily flawed big. He doesn't do anything on offense but rebound and has solid BBIQ and on defense, he is an off the ball monster. He can also defeat his position as well. Being heavily flawed at PG and being heavily flawed at PF is not the same thing just due to your responsibilty and your positional competition. If you start Jeff Teague, you making it known, you will be outplayed at PG more times than not and it doesn't matter who the component is.

I think Teague's biggest limitation as a PG will always be as a passer. His shooting has improved and if he continues to develop offensively, he could make a pretty good "poor man's Tony Parker" type of player as long as you aren't running an offense that depends on him to be a playmaker. The passing ability of guys like JJ, Josh and Al help cover for his limitations as a creator. I do think Teague can be a plus defender at the PG position if he continues to work on his fundamentals. I think Teague can work into a guy that will hold his own at the PG position on a similar level to how Scola holds his own (clearly outmatched against the elite guys unless he is really "on" but fine most nights against the next tiers). I see Ibaka as having a more elite skill than anything Scola or Teague have and being the least balanced of all three.

[Joker]

I think Teague's biggest limitation as a PG will always be as a passer. His shooting has improved and if he continues to develop offensively, he could make a pretty good "poor man's Tony Parker" type of player as long as you aren't running an offense that depends on him to be a playmaker. The passing ability of guys like JJ, Josh and Al help cover for his limitations as a creator. I do think Teague can be a plus defender at the PG position if he continues to work on his fundamentals.I think Teague can work into a guy that will hold his own at the PG position on a similar level to how Scola holds his own (clearly outmatched against the elite guys unless he is really "on" but fine most nights against the next tiers). I see Ibaka as having a more elite skill than anything Scola or Teague have and being the least balanced of all three.

The poor man's Tony Parker is Bobby Jackson. Just like the poor man's Lebron James is Josh Smith. Since Teague is a mirror image of Jackson, you agree with me then. Joe, Al, and Josh can't get into an offense either nor can an offense run through them so it's a moot point.He's a solid defender. He loses focus too much a struggle mightly v. screens. His BBIQ is his biggest weaknesses to me, even more so than his passing. A lot of combo PG's struggle at passing, in fact almost all of them but Rose.

[High5]

He been in the league for three years and yet he is still the most stupid player I seen in an offense outside of those HS prospects like Gerald Green, young J.R. Smith, and young JaVale McGee.

You can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you make statements like this. You're making Diesel look reasonable about Marvin.

[Joker]

My gripe with this whole OP (as with almost every one of NBAsuperstar's posts) is that you say you don't like someone and list people whom you feel is better; however you haven't given the full rationale of how you'd aquire those people, pay them, and what you'd do to fill the other roles. Under the current financial restraints, we have a bigger need at SF (if we move Joe back to SG) and a true post up/back to the basket kind of player. Does Jeff has flaws? Sure he does. ANYONE you bring in will have them. Would you rather see us bring in a guy that has slightly fewer flaws by creating a bigger hole in our team by dealing someone like Josh or Al?Your reasoning seems biased and a personal attack on Teague. Josh has flaws. Joe has flaws. Al has flaws. Kobe has flaws. Lebron has flaws. They all do. I'll take a player that has some flaws that is showing the ability to be a solid contributor at their position and is making a small % of what the others on your list are making vs. creating a huge gaping hole in other areas or not using what resources we have to shore up the areas which are more pressing.

I'll be the first to admit I am not the friendly nice poster. I have always been as a-hole from the time I first posted. And yes, everyone in the NBA has flaws. The difference is, what are critical and which flaws aren't. For a starter, Teague has a critical flaws over outweigh his strengths. That's the difference, for Josh, it doesn't. Look at Marvin, his strength outweigh his flaws but in Atlanta system or lack there of, his weakenesses outweigh his strengths.I have went on and on about Smith, Joe, Al in the past but those guys are more than good enough overall to start for the Hawks. Jeff is nor he is for any NBA team outside of the Lakers and Bobcats. He might not even start or see minutes at PG for the Cats.

[Guest]

#3 Pick - Bench Player?

[Joker]

You can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you make statements like this. You're making Diesel look reasonable about Marvin.

If you evaluted the position like I do, you would understand what I meant. It wasn't literally do stupid stuff like those guys do. It was based on him not knowing what he's doing in an offensive set like those guys did in an offense early in their careers. I should have been more clear on this one.

[Joker]

@Drag, PG is by far our biggest issue as a team.

[Buzzard]

You claim to be really smart and some sort of talent evaluator yet the best you can do is call a player stupid and make a post into two paragraphs that should be at the minimum three. I highly doubt you have ever put together any real evaluation given your inability to use a simple paragraph...We know you like the Mayo, we know you do not like Teague as a starter, and I am pretty sure we all know you don't know squat about evaluating basketball talent at a college or professional level. I am sorry, but Teague looks really bright compared to this garbled evaluation of yours. And more evidence as to your lack of insight into Teagues mental ability. The kid went to Wake Forest. Over half the players in the ACC could not make the grade at that school and would be kicked off the team....

Edited May 9, 2012 by Buzzard

[Joker]

You claim to be really smart and some sort of talent evaluator yet the best you can do is call a player stupid and make a post into two paragraphs that should be at the minimum three. I highly doubt you have ever put together any real evaluation given your inability to use a simple paragraph...We know you like the Mayo, we know you do not like Teague as a starter, and I am pretty sure we all know you don't know squat about evaluating basketball talent at a college or professional level. I am sorry, but Teague looks really bright compared to this garbled evaluation of yours. And more evidence as to your lack of insight into Teagues mental ability. The kid went to Wake Forest. Over half the players in the ACC could not make the grade at that school and would be kicked off the team....

You claim to be really smart and some sort of talent evaluator yet the best you can do is call a player stupid and make a post into two paragraphs that should be at the minimum three. I highly doubt you have ever put together any real evaluation given your inability to use a simple paragraph...

I already anwsered those questions on this not too long ago.

We know you like the Mayo

I like a lot of players.

we know you do not like Teague as a starter

Agreed

Teague looks really bright compared to this garbled evaluation of yours. And more evidence as to your lack of insight into Teagues mental ability. The kid went to Wake Forest. Over half the players in the ACC could not make the grade at that school and would be kicked off the team....

I know some of the guys who played Basketball at Wake like Tony Woods. No, you do not have to be that bright to play ball there and you can watch the tape and see what can and can't do on the court. Josh Smith is actually bright for real academically. He had the top score at Oak Hill and could get into IU which is where he signed out of HS. Now Josh grades are better than Rondo but is Smith a much smarter player than Rondo? You just want to agrue with me is all. You are not trying to say I am wrong, you just want me to be wrong. That's cool, do you.

[Dragitoff]

@Drag, PG is by far our biggest issue as a team.

The you've obviously never seen our players try to post up opposing bigs, especially the better defending ones.

[Joker]

The you've obviously never seen our players try to post up opposing bigs, especially the better defending ones.

I have. They look bad at it. But the options out there are too weak to be honest. Everyone who is a big has serious flaws outside of D12.

[Buzzard]

I already anwsered those questions on this not too long ago.I like a lot of players.AgreedI know some of the guys who played Basketball at Wake like Tony Woods. No, you do not have to be that bright to play ball there and you can watch the tape and see what can and can't do on the court. Josh Smith is actually bright for real academically. He had the top score at Oak Hill and could get into IU which is where he signed out of HS. Now Josh grades are better than Rondo but is Smith a much smarter player than Rondo? You just want to agrue with me is all. You are not trying to say I am wrong, you just want me to be wrong. That's cool, do you.

No I do not want to argue with you but it would be great if just one time a Internet poser admitted he was just that. But "that's cool, do you" or what ever that means. I am sure plenty of NBA GMs and college scouts have heard that one lmao Edited May 9, 2012 by Buzzard

[AHF]

I'll chime in to say two minor things: (1) I think Teague can be materially better than Bobby Jackson but they aren't that far apart right now (Jackson was a very useful rotation player) and (2) IQ isn't the same as basketball IQ. Criticizing someone's basketball IQ shouldn't be taken as a shot at their intelligence. The opposite is also true. There are many athletes with an amazing feel for the game that make moronic choices off the court, bomb the Wonderlic or IQ testing, etc. If you took large groups of people from remedial classes and from Harvard computer science grad students, in both groups you would have a mix of guys with great basketball IQs, terrible basketball IQs, and normal basketball IQs. I doubt you would find a powerful correlation between great students and great basketball IQs.

[coachx]

Stop feeding the trolls please !Simply block their post and forget the trolls even exist.Teague is a damn fine PG for a 23 year old...........anyone who hates is just a hater.

Edited May 9, 2012 by coachx

[Joker]

I agree, Teague can be better than Jackson. He's quicker, taller, and faster but not by much. Jackson competition was much weaker.

[Admin]

Stop feeding the trolls please !Simply block their post and forget the trolls even exist.Teague is a damn fine PG for a 23 year old...........anyone who hates is just a hater.

Just because we don't agree with someone doesn't make them a troll. I may not like or agree or even believe most of the things that some posters write but that doesn't make them a troll either. To your point though, if you don't like to read what someone has to say then blocking them is a good idea.