KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 Just now, kg01 said: Mitchell Robinson, for example, does much more than that. You have a blindspot when it comes to the bigs discussion. Literally no one wants a lumbering big. But we do need more size. Well, one person really, really wants a lumbering big, but my counsel tells me not to talk about him so I'll just trail off ....... I only want bigs who are switchable and can play on the perimeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kg01 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 1 minute ago, KB21 said: I only want bigs who are switchable and can play on the perimeter. And if none are available, we do what? Just because we don't do the 'ideal' thing doesn't mean we should do no-thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 5 minutes ago, kg01 said: And if none are available, we do what? Just because we don't do the 'ideal' thing doesn't mean we should do no-thing. Just because there is this perception that we need size doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves when it comes to what we want to do on offense and defense just because someone is big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kg01 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 8 minutes ago, KB21 said: Just because there is this perception that we need size doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves when it comes to what we want to do on offense and defense just because someone is big. It seems like you're combining things that no one is saying. We need size. That's not really debatable. From there, we need to do the best thing(s) that are available to us. Does that mean we can add size that is also switchable and having a plus perimeter game offensively? I hope so but that's highly unlikely. So we have to do the next best thing(s). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 4 minutes ago, kg01 said: It seems like you're combining things that no one is saying. We need size. That's not really debatable. From there, we need to do the best thing(s) that are available to us. Does that mean we can add size that is also switchable and having a plus perimeter game offensively? I hope so but that's highly unlikely. So we have to do the next best thing(s). It's a comment that is rooted in the false premise that OO isn't big enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kg01 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 (edited) 3 minutes ago, KB21 said: It's a comment that is rooted in the false premise that OO isn't big enough. We have multiple years of evidence that answers the question of whether OO is big enough for the team we have. Edited May 23 by kg01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted May 23 Moderators Report Share Posted May 23 34 minutes ago, KB21 said: It's a comment that is rooted in the false premise that OO isn't big enough. Snyder made that case for us last year when he played CC more than OO even when CC's play regressed year over year. Obviously, Snyder wasn't content giving OO 30 mpg or anything and he never started OO except when CC was hurt. An obvious solution if Snyder wanted to move to the mobile big type of gamplay for which you are advocating would have been to give OO 30 mpg and CC 18 mpg and make sure CC's minutes came in lineups that were well suited to making sure CC could be effective in his reduced time. (I've seen it posted that CC was better in lineups with DJM running point than with Trae running point last year but that is a red herring as far as whether Snyder trusted OO to assume the starting role last season. You see that in the minutes distribution.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 Just now, AHF said: Snyder made that case for us last year when he played CC more than OO even when CC's play regressed year over year. Obviously, Snyder wasn't content giving OO 30 mpg or anything and he never started OO except when CC was hurt. An obvious solution if Snyder wanted to move to the mobile big type of gamplay for which you are advocating would have been to give OO 30 mpg and CC 18 mpg and make sure CC's minutes came in lineups that were well suited to making sure CC could be effective in his reduced time. (I've seen it posted that CC was better in lineups with DJM running point than with Trae running point last year but that is a red herring as far as whether Snyder trusted OO to assume the starting role last season. You see that in the minutes distribution.) It should be patently clear that Snyder wants to be varied on defense, because he asked Clint to do a lot of stuff he can't do. The reliance on Clint is a flaw that most coaches have. Snyder just favored the vet over the young player who had has shitty player development during his early career. It's very clear that Snyder doesn't want to be drop only on defense though, and that was changing even in Utah when his drop only scheme was getting exposed in the playoffs. But let's continue to push this bullshit narrative that OO is too small just like we did when Al Horford was too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted May 23 Moderators Report Share Posted May 23 Just now, KB21 said: It should be patently clear that Snyder wants to be varied on defense, because he asked Clint to do a lot of stuff he can't do. The reliance on Clint is a flaw that most coaches have. Snyder just favored the vet over the young player who had has shitty player development during his early career. It's very clear that Snyder doesn't want to be drop only on defense though, and that was changing even in Utah when his drop only scheme was getting exposed in the playoffs. But let's continue to push this bullshit narrative that OO is too small just like we did when Al Horford was too small. The idea that Snyder wants to drop CC and start OO is not supported by anything but speculation. The facts keep rebutting it. I was rooting for it last year but it didn't happen. OO was a 4th year player last season. That is not too young for Snyder to consider starting. Heck, he let JJ seize a starting job despite much less experience than OO. It even would have made sense at a higher level with OO having signed a long-term contract and CC being down to his last year or two with the team. Now the idea that Snyder wants to be varied on defense makes sense and that would be consistent with the usage of CC and OO. But it doesn't support the idea that Snyder wouldn't want a player like Clint on the roster. I'm not sure he has ever coached a team without a "traditional" big man playing a big role. Maybe he will next year. But if so it will be a first time for him unless I'm missing something. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted May 23 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 3 hours ago, theheroatl said: What I mean is we get Sarr and someone bigger as a tandem. Model off the Grizzlies did with JJJ and Adams Exactly. We need versatility in our front court to mix and match offense and defense and player profiles. More that anything we need real NBA bodies that can play starter minutes in a pinch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted May 23 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 2 hours ago, KB21 said: It's a comment that is rooted in the false premise that OO isn't big enough. I have been screaming for OO to be the full time starter for the better part of 2 years. The past two trade deadlines I was hoping he would take CC's spot as a starter. Even if not a starter, I wanted him playing more minutes than CC, if not that I wanted him finishing most games. After he signed his extension, I said it was time to see exactly what we have in him as a fulltime starter or getting 30 mpg. He has played his entire rookie season off the bench. At some point we do have to see if he is indeed big enough to hold up for most of the season and at more minutes. I would be happy with 70 games and at least 29 mpg. (He has topped out at 25 mpg so far). I am still waiting for any of the above to happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted May 23 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators macdaddy Posted May 23 Moderators Report Share Posted May 23 I'd make the case that what Quin was asking CC to do was very different than what he was asking OO to do in their respective minutes, and it took OO longer to click in but he eventually did. When he did it was good but that was like 2 weeks before he got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jody23 Posted May 23 Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted May 23 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 20 minutes ago, macdaddy said: I'd make the case that what Quin was asking CC to do was very different than what he was asking OO to do in their respective minutes, and it took OO longer to click in but he eventually did. When he did it was good but that was like 2 weeks before he got hurt. Even OO admitted, that some of the things Quin had him doing on defense was new to him. So Quin was changing and tweaking the defense all throughout the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted May 23 Moderators Report Share Posted May 23 9 minutes ago, macdaddy said: I'd make the case that what Quin was asking CC to do was very different than what he was asking OO to do in their respective minutes, and it took OO longer to click in but he eventually did. When he did it was good but that was like 2 weeks before he got hurt. That would at least open the door to the idea that Snyder might want two different types of big men on the roster so we have the ability to run those different actions. Ironically, CC was also much better around that same after OO got injured and Clint returned and started the rest of the way. Both of them improved in the second half of the season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parfait Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 I honestly don't get the impression that anyone here is biased against OO because of his size and wants him gone. In fact I think the majority of Hawks fans want him to get his big break and get starters' minutes. But that is up to Snyder, and OO might have been slow to pick up the things that he needed to, combined with injuries, it's hard to know. But we don't need to make OO taller, we need the team to be collectively bigger and longer, especially to account for having a smaller point guard. And many of us would like a backup to OO that is a true 7 footer, ideally one without hands of stone. Those hands of stone have done yeoman's work for several years now, but it's time they get taken to the quarry! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member JayBirdHawk Posted May 23 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted May 23 6 minutes ago, KB21 said: I don't think he's 12...more like 16. Look at the rest of those other kids, they also don't look 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 2 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said: I don't think he's 12...more like 16. Look at the rest of those other kids, they also don't look 12. He's a 12-year-old playing in an 18U tournament. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now