The Official NBASupes, Sothron, and theCampster Insider Thread - NBA 2022-23 Season

[AHF]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

My post referred to the people in charge, not those of us who are mere onlookers (of course).

But okay, let's talk about onlookers... it's this simple... if we're already on the hamster wheel, then why aren't you all avidly arguing for a new rebuild? We're not going to get better trying to win trades when we have no draft capital or cap space to use that otherwise might add to and be net-positives for the talent inventory. Any trade we make, all things being equal will end in, well, all things being equal... everyone else trading existing talent is acting in their own best interests as much as we are ours, and failing some extraordinary capacity to buy low on stocks that will exponentially grow in value (Jerry West, you wanna a GM job?)... it's hamster wheel city.

 

My post referred to the people in charge and one possible view they could have that would be consistent with Landry’s statements.  The notion is that they see the team as a .500ish performer and are looking to improve it and will pay the tax if they see a move that would elevate the team into contender status (in their minds) but that in the absence of such a move they won’t pay the tax.  I simply noted that some posters here are of the view that this team has no path to contention without a major move.

[sturt]

26 minutes ago, Sothron said:

grossly misused since his 21/11 season

Hmmm... maybe the solution would be a coaching change then... ??? Oh wait.... nevermind.

[JTB]

1 hour ago, terrell said:

That's ALOT of dribbling man.. lol

It is but one thing I like about Spicy P is that he can actually beat bigs off the dribble unlike Collins.

Collins cant dribble at all. It would be nice to have a PF who can go get a bucket if the matchup is right. I have always thought Siakam was better than Collins…I just never thought he was a better shooter.

I think siakam is as close to perfect at PF for Trae as we can get at the current time.

 

[Sothron]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Hmmm... maybe the solution would be a coaching change then... ??? Oh wait.... nevermind.

It is Capela chiefly but also the lack of offense  from Hunter and DJM wanting to live in the mid range. It really kills Collins value on offense.

[AHF]

4 minutes ago, sturt said:

Hmmm... maybe the solution would be a coaching change then... ??? Oh wait.... nevermind.

The misuse is a direct product of him being paired with CC who is severely limited in what he can do but effective at what he does.  This isn’t a new topic.

[JTB]

36 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Talked to one source today. It seems the commitment Tony Ressler made to paying the LT next season is wavering. 

Pelicans contacted us about Zion. Nets contacted us about Ben Simmons. Hawks have told teams every player on the team BUT Trae Young is available for the right price. 

Lots of offers for Jalen Johnson, OO and AJ. Capela is getting a ton of interest. Collins is getting interest because the feeling around the league is he's been grossly misused since his 21/11 season and another team could be a better fit.

Ok so those rumors from ESPN about Zion were true.

man I wish he were healthy then it would be a no brainer!….then again if he were healthy he wouldn’t be on the trade block.

I’m not really worried about the outside stuff when it comes to potentially getting Zion. I just want him to play. That’s really it and unfortunately for Zion that seems to be hard ask.

I will say that Van Gundy recently said that he feels the approach on zions health has been wrong ….in short it sounds like the pelicans were holding him out of games in hopes that he took that time to lose weight and Gundy is saying that he just need to play when he doesn’t have an actual significant injury.

Edited June 17, 2023 by JTB

[sturt]

  

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

My post referred to the people in charge

4 hours ago, AHF said:

I can understand potentially the view that we are already on the hamster wheel with a team that hovers around .500 and they are willing to pay the tax for a move they think will get us off the hamster wheel.  Not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way but I am sure some of our posters who are not sky high on this team right now would concur with it.

 

The way I read it, you can understand "the view that we are already on the hamster wheel".... and you're not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way but you're sure some of our posters concur.

Sorry If I misinterpreted.

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

 The notion is that they see the team as a .500ish performer and are looking to improve it and will pay the tax if they see a move that would elevate the team into contender status

Right. Well, maybe so. Where we agree is "not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way."

 

My own take is that if you feel that way, the only logical move is to tear down the roster now. It's ridiculously rare that teams make a trade that they so exceptionally win that it has elevated their team to that tier on its own.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, Sothron said:

It is Capela chiefly but also the lack of offense  from Hunter and DJM wanting to live in the mid range. It really kills Collins value on offense.

See, I just don't think that the goal is for JC to return to 21/10. When he did that, we needed it because he was the next most legitimate threat on offense to Trae.

So, I measure JC's offensive contribution differently. He's a Swiss Army Knife at the 4, capable of giving you different things on different nights.

What regression he's had has been completely a function of his bad finger, imo. And that he turned the corner on that at the ASG break (seemingly, knock on wood) is uber-encouraging. He doesn't need to be your best low post scorer, or mid-range, or big on the perimeter... but he can be, on any given night.

It's not a question of his offense, imo, whether he sticks around in the Quin system. It's a question of his ability to show he's still capable of making improvement on defense. Camp said that Quin made some blanket instruction that he needs to see guys up their game in terms of being able to guard 3 positions, and ostensibly, guard all over the court. I believe that's accurate.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

  

I can understand potentially the view that we are already on the hamster wheel with a team that hovers around .500 and they are willing to pay the tax for a move they think will get us off the hamster wheel.  Not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way but I am sure some of our posters who are not sky high on this team right now would concur with it.

 

The way I read it, you can understand "the view that we are already on the hamster wheel".... and you're not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way but you're sure some of our posters concur.

Sorry If I misinterpreted.

Right. Well, maybe so. Where we agree is "not sure if Quin and Landry feel that way."

 

My own take is that if you feel that way, the only logical move is to tear down the roster now. It's ridiculously rare that teams make a trade that they so exceptionally win that it has elevated their team to that tier on its own.

Toronto did that with Kawhi.  Miami and LA have built from there multiple times.  If you think you have some pieces that can be big parts of a championship rotation then you are talking about one big deal that can elevate the team.  Again, I don’t know what they think but I could see a scenario where Ressler believes a big move could get it done and has no reservations about paying the tax to make that happen but won’t do it to for a move he thinks will take us from 43 wins to 49 wins but leave us short of being a genuine contender.  Just saying there are scenarios like that which could reconcile both Ressler’s refusal to pay the tax and back up Landry’s comments.  

[AHF]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

See, I just don't think that the goal is for JC to return to 21/10. When he did that, we needed it because he was the next most legitimate threat on offense to Trae.

So, I measure JC's offensive contribution differently. He's a Swiss Army Knife at the 4, capable of giving you different things on different nights.

What regression he's had has been completely a function of his bad finger, imo. And that he turned the corner on that at the ASG break (seemingly, knock on wood) is uber-encouraging. He doesn't need to be your best low post scorer, or mid-range, or big on the perimeter... but he can be, on any given night.

It's not a question of his offense, imo, whether he sticks around in the Quin system. It's a question of his ability to show he's still capable of making improvement on defense. Camp said that Quin made some blanket instruction that he needs to see guys up their game in terms of being able to guard 3 positions, and ostensibly, guard all over the court. I believe that's accurate.

JC’s single best offensive talent is as a roll man to the basket.  He just can’t play that role on this team.  So his falling point totals are not just a function of his 3 being off or even primarily related to that.  If he was paired with someone like Brook Lopez who would leave the space under the basket open it would allow the team to use his much differently and more effectively.  The problem is you can’t do that with CC because if he isn’t under the basket or rolling to the basket he is near useless on offense while JC has the ability to contribute in other ways even if it means leaving his best skill largely dormant.  If he rebounds with his shooting next year, he will most likely be back to  that 16-17 point range and not the 20-21 range he was at before (with great efficiency).

This spacing issue is why JC took a career high roughly 34% of his shots from 3pt range last year despite shooting 29%.  While Nate isn’t an offensive genius, he isn’t so dumb that he can’t figure out that JC would have been better off taking a smaller % of his shots from 3 instead of a new career high.  The problem was that there just aren’t that many options when CC is on the floor.

[sturt]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Toronto did that with Kawhi.

We're talking past each other, then.

TOR did not do that with Kawhi. Just because they won a championship doesn't mean that they weren't even before that  a legitimate top tier contender. Had the best record in the East their last season with DeRozan, with 59 wins. They were already there.

 

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

genuine contender

This is the facade that really really irks me.

What's a "genuine" contender in the East?

Surely it can't be finishing 7th in the regular season and getting bounced on your own home court in a play-in game, can it?

I just think we make things up because we swallow whole what national media perceive and say.

It's like we get this weird amnesia... we bounced MIA... we took the prohibitive favorite to the mat, even winning a win-or-go-home game. We did that.

And it wasn't like it was our first time having success in post season, right? Even last year, we won those two play-in games convincingly. The year before, as we all know too well, we had the eventual champion on the ropes, no kidding, dead serious.

I maintain we already made the major acquisition for 23-24... the former PG of the Duke Blue Devils a couple of decades ago. I maintain we're already way ahead of last season just by virtue of JJ and Junior now having a legitimate season under both their belts. Bird in the hand.

[AHF]

Toronto didn’t have an MVP quality player and never contended.  They were like past Memphis Grizzlies teams that were never contenders but put up good regular season records. 
 

The two years before Kawhi arrived, Toronto won a grand total of zero games beyond the first round of the playoffs.  We are definitely using different definitions of the word “contender” if you think that is a true contender in the NBA.  And you can check my posts from that time and you won’t find a single one saying they were legit contenders.  (Same for the Grizzles, etc.). 
 

You don’t have to listen to me, though.  Look how fast Toronto quit on that core once Kawhi left for LA.  They knew they weren’t legit contenders without him.

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

JC’s single best offensive talent is as a roll man to the basket.  He just can’t play that role on this team.  So his falling point totals are not just a function of his 3 being off or even primarily related to that.  If he was paired with someone like Brook Lopez who would leave the space under the basket open it would allow the team to use his much differently and more effectively.  The problem is you can’t do that with CC because if he isn’t under the basket or rolling to the basket he is near useless on offense while JC has the ability to contribute in other ways even if it means leaving his best skill largely dormant.  If he rebounds with his shooting next year, he will most likely be back to  that 16-17 point range and not the 20-21 range he was at before (with great efficiency).

This spacing issue is why JC took a career high roughly 34% of his shots from 3pt range last year despite shooting 29%.  While Nate isn’t an offensive genius, he isn’t so dumb that he can’t figure out that JC would have been better off taking a smaller % of his shots from 3 instead of a new career high.  The problem was that there just aren’t that many options when CC is on the floor.

I just think this is so absent of any historical context. The evolution of the stretch 5 is a very recent phenomenon, and at that, it's such a limited number of players capable of filling that role... and yet, teams without stretch 5s have had legitimate and sustained success even in the era where the NBA has some of those. 5s that can rebound and score put-backs have been tremendous assets, even back when 4s weren't so typically able to shoot from the arc.

Even if we accept your assertion that JC's best offensive talent is X... that doesn't preclude that T, U, V, W, Y and Z are good tools in the tool belt to have from your 4.

And. JC took those shots because he's supposed to take open shots... Quin said it over and over again, and maybe Nate did, too (I don't recall)... if you're open, we need you to shoot it. And teams used that to our disadvantage because he truly struggled, of course.

And and. Again. Defense. I think almost all the attention gets directed to offense, but it's defense... ie, how JC's defense compares to whoever would be projected as his replacement... that I'm inclined to believe will determine whether he's dealt.

[sturt]

26 minutes ago, AHF said:

Toronto didn’t have an MVP quality player and never contended.  They were like past Memphis Grizzlies teams that were never contenders but put up good regular season records. 
 

The two years before Kawhi arrived, Toronto won a grand total of zero games beyond the first round of the playoffs.  We are definitely using different definitions of the word “contender” if you think that is a true contender in the NBA.  And you can check my posts from that time and you won’t find a single one saying they were legit contenders.  (Same for the Grizzles, etc.). 
 

You don’t have to listen to me, though.  Look how fast Toronto quit on that core once Kawhi left for LA.  They knew they weren’t legit contenders without him.

 

After having finished the previous two seasons with the best or 2nd best record, it would be interesting to know how TOR would have been projected to finish in 2019 had the only major change been trading out Casey for Nurse.

We know what we know.

But we don't know what we can't.

It's not the silliest idea, though, to think TOR would have been thought to be ready to break through in post season.

Circling back to how this all relates to our situation today, if one really believes we're not even at the level that TOR was, then again, who's kidding whom? Blow up this team, then. It's not sober to believe you can make that kind of jump to widely-regarded contender.

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

Nonsense. Absolute horse pucky. Really, Diesel?

 

1. Heard of Nicky Ressler, Mr. Selective Memory?

Throngs of people here and everywhere were theorizing that Nicky was the man actually in control of decision-making in the front office. In other words, throngs of people had the perception that Landry was a puppet. Do some still? I dunno, but the fact that Landry still felt compelled even now to insert into a presser that the decision ultimately will be his (ie, who to draft) at least makes it a reasonable assumption that Landry had the perception that some have the perception.

That was before Landry was in place as the GM.  Throngs of people also believed that Trae was making the decisions too.  

But after we got Landry in place and he made his first few moves.. It was you giving credit to everybody but Landry.   You gave credit to Ressler.  You even gave credit to KK for bringing in Quin.  Then you started this GM by committee talk.

Here's the deal Sturt... if Landry consults KK, Quin, Ressler, or a magic 8 ball, he's still the GM.  He can consult who he wishes and it doesn't make him a "puppet". 

2. I did say what I said. I won't be held accountable for you not having a grasp of what I said just b/c of some form of ADD on your part.

And I distinctly, irrefutably made clear that I don't consider Landry a puppet. I said that. Plainly. And then I said what I do consider him instead, and then backed that up with supporting intel that also is irrefutable--as published by The Athletic, as told to Jeff Schultz.

Let me help you find your words... Oh, here they are:

 

"But, if you ask me straight up, then... do I consider Landry Fields a "puppet" nonetheless?

A "puppet" in the sense that someone else is telling him what to do? No, no, no. No.

A "puppet" in the sense that he's effectively the chairman of the committee? Well, yeah, but that's not a puppet, then.

Look. I don't make the rules, but I know what they are and don't pretend they don't exist... and similarly, I don't put words in Tony Ressler's mouth, but I know what they've been, and don't pretend that they don't exist."

"Here's the problem with your double talk Sturt, when you say  A"Puppet" in the sense that he's effectively the chairman of a committee?  Well, Yeah, but that's not a puppet"

Let me first ask...  Do you consider chairpersons.... Puppets?  Of course not, you said that that's not a puppet... but why would you even introduce this as a possibility of being a puppet in the first place?  There's your double talk.

 

Tony Ressler made clear to Jeff Schultz that Schlenk wasn't being adequately democratic in decision-making to the owner's satisfaction.

For Clarity, this is what Ressler said (From the interview):

"So what is truthful and what has not been truthful?

There’s a long list of that. I’d rather stick to why did I make the change, and that’s because I wanted our front office to run that much more effectively and be much more collaborative and communicative. "

As I read that, I get that the more important aspect of his conversation was about the communication and not the democratic decision making.   I mean as the owner, you want a guy in place who is making decisions that will give you a heads up when he's about to make changes to your team.  When he says collaborative there, I get the feeling he's talking about collaborative with him as the owner and not with anybody else. 

One last matter... you keep running around with this Nick Ressler making moves thought that we addressed earlier... Well, since you are a master at interpreting Ressler, let's see how he addresses this:

"Certainly Nick has been referenced a lot.

Untrue. He has never been in a position to make a decision. Never once.  Even the thought of it is so embarrassing to me. One, he’s done a great job working here. Two, he’s my son and I love him. Three, the idea that I’m running whatever billions of dollars this asset is worth with others owners and investors that I’d delegate one bit of my authority to Nick or anyone else is disrespectful, untrue, inaccurate. So who made that up?"

I guess even hearing it from Ressler himself doesn't give you pause.   Maybe he's lying?  Maybe he's doing it for the cameras.  Maybe he's trying to tamper down something.   OK...  Cool. 

End of the day... it's not a GM by committee.  It's a job that answers to the owner.   I'm sure that the owner has put out his financial wishes because even there he calls the team an "asset".   So he puts out his financial wishes (like most owners do) and he expect his GM to work within that. 

Landry's style is Landry's style... none of that makes him a Puppet.  or a Pseudo Puppet.. or an almost Puppet.   He's the GM.  He runs the day to day. 

 

[ShooterSays]

I think Raptor fans on social media are confusing Siakam with a prime Kawhi with like 3 years left on his contract.

I saw one proposal with them stealing JC, JJ, AJ, #15, and 2 additional FRPs for a dude with 1 year left on his contract before hitting UFA’ncy.

What a delusional fan base. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

That was before Landry was in place as the GM.

Do your research if you're fuzzy on the timeline.

 

Landry was promoted to GM in December when it was announced that Travis was stepping back.

It was January when the stories began to surface that Nick was a driving force.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

But after we got Landry in place and he made his first few moves

Two moves. The Bey trade, and the HOU trade.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

It was you giving credit to everybody but Landry. 

Spoken to this. Yes. See the part about adults celebrating other adults knowing multiplication tables, and low expectations (on your part).

The man himself... to his credit absolutely... said he did not initiate the conversation. GSW did. Fell in Landry's lap. We could quibble with whether he shoulda played hard ball and made it 4, or perhaps he did play hard ball and got it down to 5 2nds. But whatever, there's almost no one here who would not have made the decision to green light that trade.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

You gave credit to Ressler. 

You'll have to refresh my memory. I don't recall giving a Ressler, Tony or Nick, any "credit" for anything in the last 12-18 months. Don't know what would have prompted me to do that. The insinuation I suppose is that a Ressler helped forge the Bey deal (?), but there's no one who reported that a Ressler had any such role.

(It won't surprise me to learn you're just flat out making it up, but I'm just humble enough to know that just every now and then my memory fails me.)

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

You even gave credit to KK for bringing in Quin.

Yeah, that was a clear misstep on my part... as I recall Landry, Kyle, and Quin all agreed Kyle was tangential to that episode.

Seriously? Are you okay tonight? Kyle had the relationship w/ Quin, and according to... who?... Landry... Kyle brought up the possibility, and Landry asked Kyle to run point on exploring that possibility. After the hire, Quin affirmed that Kyle was the initial driving force. No one disputes any of that except evidently you, but I'm left to think there's an empty NyQuil bottle on your side of the internet... or something like that is going on.

So. Yes, I "even" gave credit to KK for bringing in Quin.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Then you started this GM by committee talk.

Yes. On my own? Of course not. Why then? Because Jeff Schultz did an interview with Tony Ressler. And Ressler told me/you/us/everyone... for the first time... why Schlenk really  was let go. And Ressler expressed great enthusiasm that his front office now was operating under the more democratic paradigm that had been lacking under Schlenk.

But you want to blame me? What, for paying attention, and believing what the owner (finally) confessed to be true?

Just stop.

Landry himself has affirmed all this even today in his presser, so I have no clue why you're barking. Did he use the term "committee," no he did not. He spoke of his delegating responsibilities. He spoke of collaborating with Quin and Kyle in discussing different scenarios in which Players X, Y and Z might be made more productive. Committee, absolutely, is just a term I've thought to fit. I'm fine if you want to propose some other term instead.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Here's the deal Sturt... if Landry consults KK, Quin, Ressler, or a magic 8 ball, he's still the GM.  He can consult who he wishes and it doesn't make him a "puppet". 

Damn. You sure you read the paragraph ahead of this comment? Because it really seems you really still don't get that there's the "perception" of being a puppet (which has been out there) and there's actually being a puppet (which I said he's not). So, you seem to think I disagree that he's not the GM. But he is. And you seem to think I disagree he can consult with who he wishes. But I do not. And again, you seem to think I disagree that, in doing those things, he's not a puppet. But nonsense, I've said in no uncertain terms he's not a puppet.

Worse. The very next words you quote from me?

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

"But, if you ask me straight up, then... do I consider Landry Fields a "puppet" nonetheless?

A "puppet" in the sense that someone else is telling him what to do? No, no, no. No.

A "puppet" in the sense that he's effectively the chairman of the committee? Well, yeah, but that's not a puppet, then.

You're just plain ignoring what I said, and ranting anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Let me first ask...  Do you consider chairpersons.... Puppets?  Of course not, you said that that's not a puppet... but why would you even introduce this as a possibility of being a puppet in the first place?  There's your double talk.

Right. I'm the one doing the "double-talk".

This is just nonsensical jibber jabber. "Why would I introduce this as a possibility of being a puppet in the first place?"... because in January 2023, stories broke that Nick was running the shop, even though Landry was the GM. Said that already. Oh, but right... you didn't bother to recognize the timeline was the timeline.

I forgive you.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

be much more collaborative and communicative. " (-- Tony Ressler)

As I read that, I get that the more important aspect of his conversation was about the communication and not the democratic decision making. 

 

Um. No. I mean, you get to interpret it as you want to interpret it... free country and all... but the owner distinctly said even in just this snippet you chose... "collaborative and communicative."

Two words. Not one.

Collaborative is a term often used in my professional domain. When I collaborate with my colleagues, it truly does mean that we all work together in a way where we all take roles and responsibilities... someone might be the "principal investigator" on a given grant project, so s/he takes a lead in being the conductor of the symphony so to speak, but it's much more like a "democratic" approach than a dictatorial, authoritarian one.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

When he says collaborative there, I get the feeling he's talking about collaborative with him as the owner and not with anybody else. 

But that's not actually what he said, my friend. He wanted his front office to (a) run effectively, and (b) be much more collaborative and communicative. Whatever status you give to "communicative" in what he was expressing, you have to give "collaborative"... hence the word "and".

In another place, Ressler indicates that he worked with Schlenk to be "more inclusive"... he wasn't happy that Schlenk was not listening to other voices in the basketball ops staff. Ressler wanted a more collaborative group, and Schlenk had a different sense for how things should be run.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

One last matter... you keep running around with this Nick Ressler making moves thought that we addressed earlier... Well, since you are a master at interpreting Ressler, let's see how he addresses this:

"Certainly Nick has been referenced a lot.

Untrue. He has never been in a position to make a decision. Never once.  Even the thought of it is so embarrassing to me. One, he’s done a great job working here. Two, he’s my son and I love him. Three, the idea that I’m running whatever billions of dollars this asset is worth with others owners and investors that I’d delegate one bit of my authority to Nick or anyone else is disrespectful, untrue, inaccurate. So who made that up?"

Um. You still don't get it. And I'm losing ways of saying it.

I didn't have the perception of Landry as a puppet. And therefore, I have no problem with this particular assertion that Nick was not allocated special covert authority because it doesn't fit with my understanding anyhow.

 

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Maybe he's lying?

Now wait a minute. Let's not introduce that as some kind of wild thought... you only just quoted an interview in which Tony Ressler told us all that he... did what???... he lied.  He confessed that he'd not been truthful about why he let Schlenk go. If there's one crystal clear takeway from that whole episode, it's that Tony Ressler is one of those people who will tell you what he wants you to believe in order to benefit whatever his cause happens to be at that moment.

 

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

End of the day... it's not a GM by committee.

Again, I'm not married to the term "committee," but I am married to what Ressler confessed he wanted his front office to be, and to what Landry has affirmed he's making it.... collaborative.

End of the day... it's not a dictatorship... that, apparently, is what irked Ressler and motivated Schlenk's exit. There is a vivid expectation that Landry operate the unit according to the prescribed paradigm coming from his boss.

Why is the boss so dog-determined to mandate that kind of operational framework? That's a whole other discussion that I've covered and covered again. It amounts to this: It's the kind of framework that makes it easier for Tony to impose his will on the operation while being able to justify that imposition. (I've been in higher ed leadership. I've seen this. It's not a mystery what Tony's pulling. University presidents and deans do it with some regularity.)

 

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

He's the GM.  He runs the day to day. 

No argument. Never has been an argument. Said that much from the start.

[JeffS17]

Imo JCs misuse was more coaching than fit, and I still feel like if we get more ball and player movement in our offense he can play with a non-shooting center.  If he cant, what we’re actually saying is that hes just a severely flawed player.  There are very few centers in the league who are legitimate threats from three — and no team cares if your center wants to shoot 10-20 foot twos all night.  Our beloved JoeLLLL does that routinely and its not helpful towards winning, just to his personal stats.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The Sturt vs Diesel word battle is epic.

[shakes]

2 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

The Sturt vs Diesel word battle is epic.

I judge the winner solely on the criteria of size of post.  I say size because I have to eyeball it cause there's no way I'm reading any of that crap.