Bad golf, a bit of pride and a team effort
If you scroll down the page you will quickly come across a post giving thanks to everything good with the Wolves followed by a post wondering how fans can watch a team with very little hope for a good future. Up and down, I know.
Wolves fandom is becoming a lot like bad golf. You go out and drop good money to make bad shot after bad shot on your way to a 90 but you keep coming back because once or twice a round you put a shot about 3 feet from the pin and you talk yourself into believing that with just a little more practice, you can drop your score by 5-10 strokes, which would make it all worth your while. If I can do it once....
Last night's victory against Denver was that one good shot per round and dammit if it doesn't keep me coming back for more.
First of all, it was nice to see a team that showed some f'ing pride and refused to stop playing hard after being down 40-25 after the first quarter. With Melo hitting on all cylinders and the Wolves being outmuscled down low by Nene and K-Mart, it could have been one of those nights where no one would have batted an eye at a 30 point loss. The game got dangerously close to being flipped to another tilt on League Pass. The only thing that kept me from hitting the remote was a consistent offensive effort for 4 quarters (25, 25, 31, 25).
Getting back to the pride thing, the Wolves were staring a number of futility records straight in the face. From tying the franchise record for most loses in a row and the worst start in team history to going through the entire month of November without a win, it probably was important that they avoided sliding into any sort of "all-time worst" discussions (although that hasn't stopped ESPN).
The second thing of note was that this was a complete team effort. All 5 starters finished in double figures led by Ryan Gomes' 27 points. Gomes carried the team through long stretches of the game before being thrown a bit off with some bad calls against him with about five minutes to go in the 4th. At one point Big Al yelled "f#$k it, keep playing" at him while he was jabbering at the refs.
Gomes' line shows what the Wolves can do with decent production on the wing but you can't count on 12-18 from Mr. Gomes on a night-in/night-out basis. You also can't count on 37-69 shooting from your starting 5; at least not with this squad.
Enough with what the team can't count on. Let's focus on what went right. The Wolves won this game because of an all around team effort and solid shooting. Take a look at the Four Factors:
| Pace | Eff | eFG | FT/FG | OREB% | TOr | |
| Minnesota | 97.0 | 109.3 | 53.0% | 20.2 | 22.0 | 15.5 |
| Denver | 103.1 | 45.2% | 28.6 | 22.9 | 14.4 |
Shooting, shooting, shooting, and more shooting. They couldn't hit the broad side of the barn from beyond the arc (3-16) but they did end up with several more fast break and transition points than I remember them getting in quite a while. I'll have to dig into the numbers after sites like 82Games and Knickerblogger are updated but the Wolves got a lot of easy looks before the defense was set. This was the sort of offense we saw glimpses of in the preseason. It is also the type of offense that allows Jonny Flynn and Corey Brewer to get the most out of their games.
Speaking of Mr. Flynn, if he ever gets the hang of the running-the-offense thing, he's going to be a pretty good player. He has an amazing ability to initiate contact against bigger players while maintaining his balance and finishing his shot. That has to be really hard to do and it really goes a long way in negating his lack of height in the lane. Moreso than in any other game this season, Flynn was able to drive and kick against the Nuggets. He had at least 4 non-assists that went to guys with wide open perimeter shots who couldn't close the deal. At no point of the game was Chauncey Billups, Aaron Affalo, or J.R. Smith in any danger of being able to stay in front of him with the ball. While he has a long way to go in terms of being able to set up his teammates in the 1/2 court, his speed and ability to control his dribble deep into the lane were, at times, game changers in Denver.
Another game changer was the intangible play of Corey Brewer. With 2 minutes to go Brewer made a fantastic, hey-where-did-he-come-from close out on an Afflalo 3 attempt (which was missed) followed 30 seconds later by another sprinting-out-of-nowhere play that broke up an easy layup by Nene (Brewer forced him to earn his points at the line where he missed 1 of 2 shots). He followed that up by bringing the ball up court against the press with 50 seconds left in the game. Let me repeat that: Corey Brewer brought the ball up court against the press with 50 seconds left in the game. An NBA game. Oh, he also had a huge and-1 with under a minute to go. The guy did it all.
Brewer ended the game with the fewest number of shots amongst the starters as well as being part of several possessions where he ran something that can only be described as a competent and productive 2 man game with a teammate on the offensive end of the court. This is a big, big deal. By being able to run a pick and roll, and by being a danger to put the ball on the deck and facilitate in the 1/2 court offense, Brewer becomes a player that has to be guarded above and beyond being within 10 feet of him (which was often the case in the past).
The main beneficiary of Brewer being a competent 1/2 court player is Al Jefferson, who was able to be useful even when his shot was not going down. Jefferson was able to operate from both sides of the lane (not just the low left block), pass to open teammates, and even disrupt a shot or two on defense. He even had the aforementioned "f-it, keep playing" rah-rah comment to Gomes. Jefferson's biggest task going forward will be to figure out if he can be an Alpha Dog who can affect the tempo and pace of the game simply by drawing double teams, crashing the boards, and running the offense through the post. He doesn't need to simply get the ball in the low block, dribble for 5 seconds and jack up a jump hook for this to happen. Here's hoping he can figure this out somewhere down the line.
I know that this game is probably the Wolves' version of putting one 3 feet from the cup but it was really nice to see some things that, hopefully, can become part of this team's character going forward. The scoring was spread out, the tempo was good, they got out in transition more than usual, Al Jefferson wasn't a black hole, they got production from the wing and opposing fans started leaving their seats with time left on the clock. Granted, a lot of it had to do with getting good nights out of guys who you probably can't count on for that type of production on a night-in/night-out basis, but the style of game was the type of thing I hope to see much more of in the future with a better roster.
Until then, I guess I'll have to settle for bad golf and a great shot every 9 holes or so.
BTW: I would be remiss if I didn't mention a gigantic WTF for Denver's coaching staff. When the game got close in the 3rd and K-Mart was jacking up 20 footers while Carmelo Frickin' Anthony is standing in front of a bunch of home refs instead of taking it into the lane, I...well, seriously, WTF?! Why wait until 2 minutes to go to give the guy the ball to bring up the court and tear apart whoever is guarding him? You don't get to have teen-quarters against a team like the Wolves with Melo on the team. Post him up, let him bring it up the court, whatever....it was ugly.
0 recs |
220 comments
|
Comments
Right On
This must be what a 3 Day Shore Leave Pass feels like in the middle of a war.
I was hoping for our next win to come on Wednesday against the Grizz.
Xmas came early.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
by HumdingerTV on Nov 29, 2009 10:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's better than a 3 day shore leave...
…as this won’t leave you with a VD when you get back to the ship…or so I’ve heard ;)
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 29, 2009 11:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Such little faith
in the women of Denver
by Eric in Madison on Nov 30, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
who have been servicing Miners since 1859
by levi_mn on Nov 30, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of a stars align game for the Wolves
Flynn, Brewer and Gomes have all had great games individually this year, but never seemed to be able to have them on the same night until now.
I think Gomes gave us a preview of what we can do with a high scoring wing player, which just reinforces, in my mind, the need to go after Rudy Gay at the deadline or this summer.
I also think we can probably consistently get these kinds of games from Corey when we pair him with a high scoring wing and he’s able to be more selective about his game.
And Flynn…well, what else is there to say. He outplayed Billups and Lawson combined, was unstoppable off the dribble, and could have easily finished with 22 points if two of his threes hadn’t rimmed out on him.
by Oceanary on Nov 29, 2009 10:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
I’m ecstatic whenever I shoot in the 90’s when I’m golfing…
by TimAllen on Nov 29, 2009 10:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I missed a win?
Damn. I shouldn’t have to be so bummed.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 29, 2009 10:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
In all seriousness...
It’s nice to beat them. They play with so much damn entitlement against the Wolves, even though they’ve played close games against them the last 3 years in their building.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 29, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yep...
…my bad. change made.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 29, 2009 11:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First night I make a conscience effort not to pay attention to the NBA so I could get more studying in
and this is what happens. Figures.
by museum on Nov 29, 2009 11:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Please keep ignoring the team
until the winning streak ends.
I think it’s being rebroadcast in an hour or two on FSN, if you have access.
by PoorDick on Nov 29, 2009 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and by the way,
is there a better motto for the Wolves this year than:
“Fukkit! KEEP PLAYING!”
by PoorDick on Nov 30, 2009 1:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
new website header:
F*KKIT! KEEP PLAYING!
by davechisholm on Nov 30, 2009 1:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well once again I must give props to SnP
because the write-up that I read over at Denver Stiffs was just bad. Obviously they were upset and it was a proclaimed “rant write-up”, but it was just bad writing. Absolutely nothing about what happened, just who was to blame. I always enjoy one such as this where it is actually about the game and what went right and wrong. It was still nice of some of the Denver fans to come over here and congratulate us though, I’m sure it took some real cajones to do that to [one of] the worst teams in the league.
George Karl is still a godawful coach and it turns out most Denver fans still agree. The A.I. days were ugly and Billups is the only reason that the man has an excuse to keep his job. I feel bad for them because I know how the coaching woes feel. And the issues with having a guy keep his job based off of reputation.
I love Big Al showing some fight. Even when it doesn’t look like he gives a sh!t at all. Seriously, I am convinced that he might just be the worst post defender in the league. Two plays in the game recap video on NBA.com show Big Al really close to a guy taking a layup… but he is just standing there watching! Come on Jefferson! You could easily do something about that, whether you block it or just get into his head for next time. He also lost Nene a few too many times. Anyways, nice to see the fire.
Do you think Kahn or Rambis come here and read regularly and saw what was going on here in the aforementioned thread and it got the team fired up when they shared it with them? Yeah? Me either… but maybe!
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 1:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
George Karl is more Redd Foxx than Red Auerbach, that's for sure.
You were a daydreamer, a sass-mouth, and, not infrequently, a bit of a gigglepuss. Somehow I doubt twenty years of amphetamines and failure have done anything to improve that.
by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on Nov 30, 2009 7:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The team
has a staffer that is responsible for checking all the internet “buzz” on the team and Kahn does indeed get a brief report. I know for a fact this site is on the list.
The previous coaching staffs did not read the internet stuff very frequently. I understood that Maddog was about the only player that did. Not sure about the current staff or players.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 8:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's cool
I’ll be Love is scouring the web.
Hmmm…. maybe you are that staffer….
Wonder if said staffer has a name here and actually posts or if they just read and leave.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maynholup.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The future of the Timberwolves
is in good hands.
by John Doe on Nov 30, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When you need a Chief
he’s the man with the spleef
by levi_mn on Nov 30, 2009 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Sorry – not me. If you look back in the Canis Hoopus archives, I believe SNP actual did a write up on it when the position was announced.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not just Al. The Nuggets had one basket where on the replay you could see Gomes was standing out of bounds under the basket as the shot was going in (think in-bounds spot). I am still scratching my head over that one.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 30, 2009 9:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
the whole team is accountable. I’m just saying, Big Al is terrible. As our anchor, he should be doing more to try to win… on defense Al, on defense. Especially when he doesn’t have his legs back under him yet, defense should be his primary focus.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al has to be accountable too. I am just wondering what Rambis & Co will say/do say in practice when you have players literally out of bounds on D.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 30, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What a game!
I’m glad to see the T’wolves win this game. Corey Brewer is a Shane Battier No-Stats wunderkind. I love this kids game!
If I had a team I would do every thing I could do get Brewer and Thabo Sefolosha on the wing, just so we could win games 77-70.
by BlazerTag on Nov 30, 2009 1:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wilkins
From the game thread:
“Every single minute he plays is an indictment of Kahn’s "Develop Players" manifesto…”
“Giving minutes to Wilkins is nothing more than a short-term attempt to win a game. And a sad indictment on the level of talent on the team.”
So Wilkins played 32:53, Cardinal DNP, Pavlovic DNP, Pecherov 4:32.
Those other three have had enough chances this year and they suck. I feel like when Wilkins plays things just move more smoothly. He gets it and his maturity seems to relax the team a bit. I think he has to become a staple in the line up and those other three are done. The first two WON’T be back and Pecherov I doubt will be back either.
Wilkins has had two good games and we won both…
by Far East on Nov 30, 2009 6:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wilkins and the boards
Damien is now rebounding, by the % stat, at a smidge under twice his career rate. Both Wolves wins so far have featured big rebounding by Damien, with the first game ending on his put-back basket.
Offhand I don’t think the Wolves have particularly been outboarded in a conspicuous way, but they’re down just about 4 rebounds a game relative to their opponents so far. The absence of Love and Jefferson’s legs have definitely played a role. Jefferson’s rebounding rates are notably lower than his career ones. Injuries have turned a team strength into a weakness.
It’s going to be pretty interesting to see how Rambis handles Love’s return. He just bumped the lineup last night to get Wilkins on the court instead of Hollins at game’s start. (Ahem, note: Hollins, as a 7-foot kid with springs in his shoes, is an anemic rebounder.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Nov 30, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really care about the Other Three for Wilkins
I do care about Wayne Ellington’s minutes. I’d like to see him get more to see if he develops into any-sort of shooting rhytmn. If not I wouldn’t mind taking a look at D-Leaguers with shooting ability. Shooting is at the center of the Wolves problems. I’m not saying if it improves we’re a playoff team. I’m only saying if we get back to 2007-2008 shooting levels- we’re competive more often.
by Jose Cordoba on Nov 30, 2009 8:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
The team was actually knocking down jump shots last night. Made a big difference.
by littleboxes on Nov 30, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"it was nice to see a team that showed some f'ing pride and refused to stop playing hard after being down 40-25 after the first quarter"
I’m not fixated on the record, it’s a matter of if I am watching games I want to see the team going all out. Great job on that front last night.
A few thoughts:
- Brew is starting to show flashes of being a 2/3 rather than 3/4 version of Shawn Marion for me. Comparison is ugly offensive game, but enough in terms of physical gifts and effort that he can still make a big impact on O.
- Love is going to help this team immensely in the rebounding area. They lost a lot in terms of rebounding from the wing when Miller left and Love should pick up the slack. It seemed like he and Mike were competing for the same rebounds often last year.
- I like the golf comparison, whether you term it that way or stars align – this is how the NBA is. Some nights your shots fall and the other team’s don’t. It’s the percentages. That’s part of what made blowout after blowout tough to swallow and this was good medicine.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 30, 2009 9:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts
When Brewer sets his feet, like he did tonight, he will make shots. He was able to do this tonight because he was the complimentary scorer to Big Al and Gomes. It’s when he “floats” he can’t hit the broad side of a barn. Usually because he is forcing the action.
I would like to see Gomes be more offensively assertive in every game. I think he has enough well rounded offensive talents to be the key to our offense.
I shuddered several times in the 4th quarter with Flynn’s decision making. He was lucky tonight – several off balance shots went in. But the offense was working perfectly through Gomes and Big Al – we did not need the penetration offense from him. Hopefully he learns but right now, I would have preferred to see Sessions in at the key times.
Finally, it was great to see the fight and be the beneficiaries of some good shooting. But the defense was still sub par – especially at the rim – for us to be long term competitive. Until that is fixed, we are going to need more “Brain Farts” like those provided by the Nuggets in order to win.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 9:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agree with just a fan...
The more I see Flynn the more I get concerned about the one thing that is hard to change with play makers, decision making. I bought into Kahn & crew saying “we had Flynn rated over Rubio and all other pt guards in 09 draft”. I know it’s early, but some of his passes are way off the mark and at 5-10 he gets a lot of shots blocked. I’ve seen Rubio on NBATV a few times this year. Very unassuming, Rubio is the 5th option on his team and can’t go by guards over there off dribble. If Flynn is rated higher than Rubio? Neither can shoot it very well, throw in Sessions, and Wolfs have a bad shooting point guard future.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 9:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Conned
I can say quite confidently that Rubio was rated higher than Flynn on the Twolves draft board. There are a few revisionists out there misquoting the staff on Flynn being higher rated than Rubio. Simply not true. Whether he ever plays here or not, the Twolves made the right choice in picking Rubio. (Personally, I would have tried to trade him to the Knicks)
The dicey part of this for me is that the draft board separation between Flynn, Lawson, Jennings, Curry, and Holiday was pretty small. Flynn was selected in no small part due to his personality and pick and roll abilities. Then we hire a coach that emphsiszes a different style of play.
If given a “do over” I don’t think Flynn gets chosen – not because he is not a potentially good player, but because others on the list (Curry especially) would now be a better fit.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At the time, I was willing to give Kahn the benefit of the doubt when he said they had to work in the draft first and coach second. Much more skeptical now. You have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 30, 2009 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So glad I recorded this one
I watched the second half and can only comment on that. One thing I liked about last night’s second half compared to the drubbing the Wolves took last week was Birdman taking one in the mouth and subsequently going soft on Al inside. He and the other bigs controlled the rim at Target Center. Not so last night.
Question:
If Jennings had come here and Flynn gone to Milwaukee would Flynn be getting the buzz Jennings is?
by A.K. Agikamik on Nov 30, 2009 9:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I completely forgot..
…to put in the thing about the Birdman getting popped. That was big. He wanted nothing to do with Al after that hit. He even turned his back to him on a layup. That’s not a good sign when your defensive big shuts it down for the night.
As for Jennings and Flynn, I don’t know. I have no idea how to rate Euro players and I’ve never made an attempt. I do have two opinions on the matter: First, Jennings has a year of professional ball under his belt. I think that matters. Second, I think people underestimate just how much of a jump it is from high school to the EL. Jennings is going to come down to earth because he’s such a terrible shooter and I think he has just as many size issues as does Flynn but…well, I can’t compare them because I depend on college stats to compare players. I wasn’t a Flynn fan before the draft and I still would have rather had Curry and/or Lawson but that’s spilled milk at this point.
All of that being written, I think that if Flynn had gone to a team with a solid pick and roll system or somewhere like Golden State he would have a huge amount of hype right now. The guy is quick and strong enough with the ball to be dangerous in up tempo/p-n-r situations. I just hope he can learn how to run an offense and develop his three point shot. He could be damn near unguardable if he straightens out those two aspects of his game.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 30, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
SNP
I just replied to that. I think the Twolves and Golden State would both benefit from a Flynn / Curry swap as it would better fit the team’s offensive style of play.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 10:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me clarify
that I am not suggesting a Curry/Flynn trade – but rather in a draft “do over” Curry to Mn and Flynn to Golden State would have been better fits.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If MN had snapped up Curry
There’s no way the GSW would have taken Flynn. They needed someone to pair with Ellis in the backcourt. Ellis is a taller, better version of Flynn. They didn’t need another penetrator on that club.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought they...
…were set on Jennings if Curry was off the board.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 30, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Curry was the right pick at #6 on draft day...
…and I still do, even though Jennings has blown past everyone’s expectations. Curry would’ve provided insurance for Rubio at the point, and Kahn could’ve credibly claimed that Curry would move over to the shooting guard position when/if Rubio arrives. Flynn has provided “Rubio insurance” at the point, but no one believes Flynn and Rubio can co-exist in the same backcourt.
Given the lack of evidence that Flynn was/will be a better player than Flynn, Curry seemed like the obvious pick after Rubio fell to #5. But Kahn had fallen in love with Flynn during his interview in Minneapolis, Curry didn’t seem interested in playing for the Wolves, and the rest is history. Like the above poster, I wonder whom the Wolves would take at #6 if they could do it over again. And I also wonder if GS would consider trading Curry for Flynn. Dropstep’s point concerning Flynn/Monta redundancy seems correct, but you never know what Nellie/Rowell are thinking when they make personnel decisions…
by Shogun on Nov 30, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought..
…Golden State was sending the pick/player to Phoenix in a package for Amare. Wasn’t that part of the whole Ellis/Jack – Nelson fight? They were ‘promised’ the pick would bring a vet, but they were so thrilled with Curry they kept him. In that light, I seriously doubt they are trading him if they thought he was good enough to change their plans completely to keep him.
Because there are no fours.
Toine
by CaliWolf on Nov 30, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct sir
The pick was headed to Phoenix in a trade for Amare until Curry dropped.
I don’t think Phoenix wants a do over!!
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Ellis...
….lasts the season in GSW.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 30, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A big if...
that seems to be looking smaller lately.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One other positive about Flynn
Out of all those guys, I think I trust Flynn and Lawson’s mental ability to not get “Harrington’d” (to use an NFL example) by a losing franchise. I think Brewer’s head got a little messed (confidence-wise), and it’s taking him until now to get back to where he was. Jennings probably would’ve handled OK seeing as how he made it through EL as a young guy, but on this rebuilding team you don’t need your young rookie point to be a headcase. Flynn’s gumption and heart might’ve been what tipped him over the rest of the other PGs available on draft night, given the likelihood of lots of losing.
I suppose you could also look at it another way-if we assume that none of the other PGs at #6 were good fits for the triangle, then who do you believe has the most aptitude to adjust their game to it? Who’s most likely to buy into the team concept and work hard at learning and adjusting, knowing that it’s going to take time and be rough? Curry makes great sense as a shooter, but I’d be concerned that he’d pull a Brewer and try too hard to prove he belongs. Same with Jennings. Lawson’s really the only other guy that I’d think would do well in this system and be able to weather the losing the the learning curve. I’m not saying that these guys can’t do it, I’m just suggesting that when everyone grades out about equal, some of these other characteristics might tip scales.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 30, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Birdman has the tough guy rep and tough guy look
It was great to see his feminine side come out thanks to our man Al.
by A.K. Agikamik on Nov 30, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not
but Jennings wouldn’t be getting quite as much buzz in Minnesota, either. It’s not easy to play guard on a team with a depleted front line. Add to that the issues of learning the Rambis offense, and Flynn is faced with a tougher task than Jennings. He’s doing well, so far. Better than most rookies and he basically looks like a legitimate lottery player.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt he’d have dropped 55 pts, as that’s a pretty special feat, but I feel pretty confident he’d be producing more, and thus getting more publicity, in a more open system like they’re running in Milwaukee. On the flip side, I can virtually guarantee Jennings would be producing less if he were on this team.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We should note that Flynn has completely outplayed Jennings over the last 4 games
Both are averaging 18 points and 5 assists, but Jonny’s shooting 43%. Brandon is shooting 28%.
In fact, three out of his last four game, Jennings has had more attempts than points.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All symptoms
of the proverbial ‘green light’ from coach.
The curious story, and the one with lots of play left in it, to Milwaukee right now is Skiles. Jennings with a stomach full of confidence, even over the course of a single season, is a lot to coach. Skiles has such a long history of riding people — the headband crisis in Chicago, for example, where Big Ben committed the sin of trying to wear a team-colored headband.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 6:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wing Play
Wolves fans were able to witness last night what can happen if you have competent Wing play. Big Al, Flynn, and the bench put put up numbers that were consistent with what we’ve seen all season. It was the fact that we got a great game from Gomes, and above average games from Wilkins and Brewer that allowed for us to come back and ultimately win this game. Obviously, we shouldn’t expect that type of output from those three consistently.
All in all, it just underscores how important it is that we solidify our wings this off-season.
by Blakeley on Nov 30, 2009 9:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I cannot wait until they can put some quality wings out there. I think that if Al can get healthy again without losing his newfound zeal for passing and Love can improve as we expect him to, there’s a really solid core in place here. Add a Rudy Gay or Evan Turner (or both) to that plus some extra defense up front and I think things can get much better very quickly for thist eam.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man I am drooling
Rubio/Flynn/Sessions (one has to go)
Brewer/Turner (or switched if Turner is a better defender and Brewer becomes decent at offense)
Gay/Turner/Brewer
Norel/Love/Pekovic
Alphabet/Jefferson/Hollins
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This squad still has shooting woes
Obviously it’s much improved in terms of raw talent and skills, but it still has a huge hole in terms of 3-point shooting. We need someone in our top 3 SG/SF rotation to be an outside shooting sniper since it won’t be coming from any of our core bigs (Jefferson, Love, Hollins, or Pekovic if he ever joins us) or stable of PGs.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think you need deadeye 3pt shooters in our offense if you have reliable midrange shooters like Turner, Gay and Love. I also think Turner will develop into a good 3pt shooter in time, so I’m not too worried. Not to the point of turning down that lineup if there’s a chance of assembling it, at least.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wesley Johnson
Would he be a better fit than Turner? I’ve barely seen him or Turner play, but the recently updated profile on espn.com compares him to Joe Johnson. Sounds like the kind of guy that would fit in well with a team of point guards and post players. Turner sounds a bit more like a ballhandling off-guard that wouldn’t mesh as well with guys like Flynn and/or Rubio.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While I think we need 3-point shooting in the worst way
I’d still draft BPA. And if Evan Turner is the BPA, then we should take him even though he doesn’t fit our biggest functional needs. If he and Wesley are considered relatively equal in value, then yeah, let’s take the better shooter. It’s still way early though. I want to see Wesley tested in conference play.
Xand1, I don’t think we can just assume Evan Turner will become a good outside shooter. And Kevin Love has potential, but we did not see a reliable stroke from him last year at all. Plus 3 points is 50% more than 2 points. I want guys that can go out and knock down 40% of their 3-point shots with solid volume, not averagish mid-range jump shooters that need to hit an unheard of 60% of their 2-point jumpers to reach the equivalent level of efficiency. It isn’t just about floor spacing, it’s also about offensive efficiency. 3 points is a hell of a lot better than 2. This is a huge, huge gap for our squad right now.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I agree that some deep shooting would be nice, but the gap in our squad right now is talent and shooting in general, not just from behind the arc. I think you can make up for lack of loads of 3pt shooting with an offense and personnel that generate high percentage looks and lots of FT’s, which is exactly what the above team could do.
The issue isn’t that I disagree that we need 3pt shooting, it’s that it doesn’t appear that there will be any lights out shooters worth taking with a top pick in next year’s draft. I think it’s easier to go BPA and get a versatile guy like Turner, who you guys need to watch if you haven’t yet, and fill in the gaps around him. Or we could try really really hard to get Joe Johnson instead of Rudy Gay, although IIRC his 3pt %‘s aren’t fantastic either.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree generally that a versatile wing that can get easy baskets (Roy, Bryant, Wade) is better than a pure shooter from the outside. But, it’s far from a certainty that Turner can become an elite NBA wing in the mold of the aforementioned guys. If he looks like the guy on Draft Night, then by all means take him.
Johnson has been picking up steam of late, since the Cuse is killing teams like Cal and UNC and he’s leading the way. I think he was a bit of a question mark heading into the season. I just got interested when I read the latest report on his game, talking about 6’7" wing with super athleticism and range on his jumper. Add that to the recent productivity in big games and he sounds legit.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, if he’s BPA where we pick, I’m all for it. I haven’t watched him yet, though from what I’ve heard he’s streakier and not as versatile as Turner, but I’ll definitely keep an eye him. As long as we can get some serious help on the wing next year I’ll be happy.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To Rascal Flatts: True
but not every team needs to have 3pt shooting to go far. And there is also Ellington in the reserves who could hopefully regress to what he used to be…odd. But he has seriously dropped off the planet since arriving here. Great shooters rarely make it to stardom, or at least players whose main talent is shooting. Obviously there are some like Ray Allen and Reggie Miller, but the upside for guys like that seems to be Mike Miller or Jason Kapono. I’d rather have Lebron, who can knock down a shot with relative consistency, but is nothing spectacular. This should also be the case with Flynn, Rubio, Sessions, Turner, Gay, Ellington, and Love…. and a slight possibility that Brewer will join this list some day. I would rather have an entire team that can shoot 35% from beyond the arc than one guy who can shoot 40-45%. Unless of course this guy can get these numbers with a hand in the face, then thats just impressive. But there are going to be a lot more open opportunities if the whole team can do it which should improve everyone.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do the Lakers have any deadeyes outside of maybe Fisher? I know Kobe’s never been a good shooter percentage wise, so it wouldn’t surprise me if his career # is below 35%.. But damn, do they move the ball and generate good shots. Of course, having Kobe helps, but if you replaced him with Roy or Joe Johnson they would still be a very good team despite not having tons of 3pt shooters.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Lakers would be a good team
without Kobe and Bynum and Artest. Pau Gasol and Odom (the versatile scorers with seemingly the most chemistry on the team) with Fisher facilitating and Vujacic (who qualifies as their good shooter) and Walton doing whatever is left over. Kobe gets too much respect on an allstar team such as that. I still believe Gasol does more for that team.
But no, outside of Vujacic, they dont really have a dead-eye shooter.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t Sasha pretty poor, percentage wise? I know that most Lakers fans despise him for his poor shot selection and chucker tendencies..
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great shooter
but yeah, I’m not sure but I always got the impression that “The Machine” was a little cocky about where he could make a shot from.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams without solid volume 3-point shooting that do well are the exception, not the rule
Look at the division leaders. All of them have guys, usually multiples of guys, that are averaging 1+ 3PTM per game with solid percentages (mid-30s and up). The Lakers are an exception, not the rule. They have two amazingly efficient bigs in Gasol and Bynum, plus one of the three best players on the planet earth in Kobe Bryant. But even they have Ron Artest who this year is giving them solid 3-point shooting on decent volume.
Without a doubt we should take BPA with our lotto pick and without a doubt the lineup you posted is loads better that what we’ve got. It just immediately stood out to me that it has a gaping hole in terms of 3-point shooting. I think Gay/Turner/Brewer could be a formidable rotation at the 2 and 3 slots, but then I would look to do something else at the 1, 4, and/or 5 to find a 20+ minute per game shooting ace.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Artest wasn't there when they won though
And Detroit of the early decade didn’t have any lights out shooters, they were just all good. The Cavs also don’t have any tremendous shooters. Orlando lives and dies by the three, and most often in big games, they die.
Don’t write off Ellington just yet though. He could be a nice player and could even play the 1 if we wanted a bigger and athletic lineup (Ellington can flat out ball, watch him take the ball from coast to coast. I was pleasantly surprised with his ability in this area) and then just put Turner in there with him to give us shooting and passing/ball handling.
I’m not saying 3pt shooting doesn’t help. I’d love it if we could get some, but I wouldn’t trade away talent for it. A guy like Morrow or hopefully Ellington only needs to play 15mpg to satisfy any shooting needs. Efficiency can come from more than just 3pt shooting, and I’d personally rather see it come from a high base shooting percentage (from a well balanced team where no doubles can come without worry). Like I said though, shooting is an asset and I think if we can bring in talent and then worry about shooting later (the guys still have the ablity to develop further if they work on that), we would get the best of both worlds. Shooting then talent might not be the best order.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're kidding, right? Anthony Parker, Mo Williams, Booby Gibson. Also Billups in Detroit.
Billups attempted over 330 3-point shots and made 40% of them in the Pistons championship year. He shot 3s in volume and made them at a very nice rate. That was hugely important to the Pistons team. Gibson, Parker and Williams are all deadeye 3-pt shooters that average 1+ threes per game. Again, they are very complimentary to a guy like LeBron that sucks in the defense with his slashing. Turner, Jefferson, and Gay need guys to kick the ball out to otherwise the defense will just hunker down and pack it in on that squad.
We don’t need to be at the extreme like Orlando and Phoenix, but I think we need more than just a token spot shooter. My dream come true would be for Ellington to be a non-cancerous version of McCants circa 07-08. That would go a long ways in solving our shooting woes.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 7:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not joking in the least, thanks for making sure
You’d rather have one 40% 3pt shooter than 3 or 4 35% ft shooters?
For the Cavs, all 3 of those guys you mentioned are shooting well over their career averages. And yes, that is a product of Lebron. Like I was saying. I would rather have the good players first that allow shooters to get open and shoot better than they are supposed to be.
The year the Pistons won the finals, they shot .344 as a team. Billups shot .388 and was their team’s best. They just had a ton of guys playing significant minutes with beautiful TS% (I know it includes 3s, but this is exactly what I was talking about above). And they also got more win shares from defense than offense.
The Spurs are another team that during their finals runs often had 3pt% well below .350 (their most previous I believe was above that). Again, an astonishing list of high TS%s and a larger amount of defensive win shares than offensive.
So no. I am not kidding. Are you?
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Norel?
Are you drooling for the all-stick-figure team?
by levi_mn on Nov 30, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
haha
I hope so badly that that guy makes it over here some day. I would tip my hat to Kahn and our international scouts for that, and then sincerely apologize for being so disgusted when we picked him. That said, I am still disgusted! And I wish we had gone another direction.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
I’m all for getting Gay AND Turner. That’s a niiiiice 2-3 combination, with Brewer getting minutes with either and being freed up to play to his strengths. And if things stay approximately how they are now, we’ll have at least 1 more 1st rounder in the late teens in a draft with lots of solid big men.
by Esohny on Nov 30, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or you go huge...
…and let turner run the point with brewer at the 2 and gay at the 3. my dream team is 6’7" to 6’9" across the perimeter with each guy being able to defend 2 (or more) positions.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 30, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they were heading this direction in the first Casey year...
But they forgot that Marko Jaric isn’t a good PG and that Trenton Hassell became a more average defender once they started enforcing hand checks.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 30, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That Hassell signing..
….right before the rule change still gets me. I think the main thing a GM should look for in a roster is less an ability to fit a single system than an ability to run out several different looks around your best players at any given time. You need to be able to go big or small and fast or slow (etc). The thing that worries me most about Kahn is him talking about the need for a system. You need a winning culture and you get the best players you can regardless of the system. I think Rambis is good for this kind of flexibility but I don’t know about Kahn.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 30, 2009 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Intriguing
Could be effective for certain matchups, although I don’t know if I’d want Turner as a full-time PG. I’m just imagining how much more effective Flynn’s drive and kick game would be with Gay and Turner on the wings, or how Rubio would look orchestrating with 3-4 legit scorers playing with him.
by Esohny on Nov 30, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are the anti-Wolves in this respect?
Philadelphia: the team with many wings but no legitimate PG play? When Elton’s sitting for Thaddeus Young as their “PF,” they’re like the inside-out version of the Wolves.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spacing
The floor spacing looked better on offense, last night. I don’t know if this was Denver’s poor defense, or specific changes made in the gameplan, but we had a couple possessions that resembled Houston Rockets-like passing and floor spacing. It’d be nice to see more of that as Jefferson continues to get better. Love’s return should also help in this area.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 10:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Guys actually executed plays and hit open shots, which made it that much easier to get open later in the game because their defenders had to play them tight. Inability to hit open shots is a huge huge reason we stunk as much as we did previously, so I’m really hoping this is a sign that the team is turning a corner in terms of confidence, teamwork or whatever it was that was preventing them from making basic basketball plays earlier in the season.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hitting outside shots will continue to be a problem
The question is whether these guys can at least go from historically horrible (Brewer/Pavs/Ellington/Wilkins all had <38% FG coming into last night’s game) to bad. I was really hoping Ellington would start showing some signs by now, but he continues to really struggle knocking down his shot. His adjustment to the NBA and ability to give us a couple 3PTM per game would be absolutely huge to this team.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all confidence. He’ll shoot it if he’s open, but other than that he’s not confident in his handle and he doesn’t have plays run for him to get open off the ball, so his opportunities are pretty scarce. I hope that changes going forward.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was poor defense by the Nuggets
The Wolves didn’t have do too much to get open — and in the 2nd half especially, simply hit their shots. This was a giveaway by the Nuggets.
by levi_mn on Nov 30, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 in a row.
If Wolves win vs Grizz on Wednesday, I can see them winning 15 plus for year. If it’s 1 win and then 6 or 7 losses, yuck….. a 15 or less season. Love will help them become a very good rebounding team. Best thing about Love playing will be Hollins, his nonrebounding butt, will be next to Rambis. He’s the worst 7’ rebounder ever.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 10:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You’ve obviously didn’t watch Jason Collins play last year.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or Mark Blount in any season other than his Boston contract year
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 6:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Even with Love healthy, we will have to play a big man off the bench
And I’d much rather it be Hollins than Pecherov
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But Oleksiy has
actually earned his PT this year! Give the man a little credit. He has been the most consistent member of our team. Just cuz he takes the occasional poor shot… ok not poor so much as downright godawfull… but that doesn’t mean he has done everything else at least acceptably.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing nice about this game
was our ability to close the game out. Can’t remember how many close games we have had in the fourth quarter and we ended up losing. Flynn could be the perfect guy to make sure that doesn’t happen.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 10:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Just not a fan of Hollins
I read after we signed him that he was a paint protecting big man. How can he block a shot when he’s being thrown around like a rag doll? Hollins has as many fouls as rebounds and can’t remember last block. He is our best 16’ jumpshooter however. I guess I was expecting more after the build up he got when 1st signed. Disappointed again. What’s new with this franchise.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 11:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hollins
Anyone who had ever seen him play knew he was soft. His signing did appease those who thought the biggest need was a super athletic center, rather than the run of the mill big thus off the bench. To the Wolves credit, Hollins does not have a lifetime of basketball experience, putting him solidly in the “project” category of guys who may someday figure it out. It is not clear whether his biggest limit is his muscle, his attitude or his basketball IQ. At least he didn’t cost the team a #2 pick.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 11:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Jawai, Pech, and Hollins are all seeing minutes that are exponentially higher than anything they’ve seen before, while lacking the cover of being paired with a dominant big man since Jefferson is still a shell of what he was pre-injury and Love is out of the lineup. I think Jawai and Hollins are worthy projects since both offer some unique physical attributes that could help us matchup with different types of opposing big men defensively. But both have a ton to learn still on the basics of defensive positioning. They are the real tests of Kahn’s player development philosophy.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hollins is still our best interior defender
Which says as much about Love and Jefferson as it does about Hollins, but still.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be charitable
and concede that it depends on how you define interior defense. In terms of straight up defense of the opposing center, I don’t think Hollins can match Love or even Jefferson. As alluded to by Rascal Flatts above, positioning is key, and winning the scrum of keeping your man off the low block is critical. Hollins does add an element of quickness hops and shot blocking that the others miss, but falls short in other areas of defense. If you add rebounding as an element of defense it isn’t close. Hollins does not keep his man off the glass.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I more go by in terms of how many points does the player he's matched up with score
By that number, Hollins leads us by a wide margin.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well there are no numbers for Love this year
So that makes the comparison difficult. But if you use last year’s numbers for Love 82games reports that at Center, Love gave up 20 pts per 48 minutes, while this year Hollins gives up 24. This year Jefferson gives up 21 pts, and that’s against first stringers. Jeffesron is blocking shots at a higher rate than Hollins this season, and Hollins blocks per 48 are almost identical to Love’s last year 1.4 to 1.2.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oceanary
Are you saying that when Hollins is on the court the team does better on defense or Hollins man doesn’t individually score as much?
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Both
Granted he’s being compared to Pecherov and Jawai at the moment…
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I get
where you can argue he fares better than replacement, although his defensive on/off court numbers are a wash, but where do you get support for the idea that Hollins’ man does not score as much as he would against Love or Jefferson?
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for example, the last two games against Portland
Oden has averaged 17ppg against Jefferson, while Aldridge has averaged just 10ppg against Hollins. And granted that’s just a two game example, but I’ve noticed that players just score a lot less when Hollins is on them versus Jefferson and certainly versus Pecherov.
And an example using Portland is particularly telling because historically Aldridge has been the high powered scorer for that team.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you mean by scoring averages
But Hollins v. Aldridge is a far more favorable matchup than Jefferson v. Oden. Hollins matches up well with Aldridge because he’s just as tall and athletic while not being much smaller build-wise. Oden, on the other hand, is far bigger and more athletic than Al.
Oden is the type of guy that needs to be guarded by a bigger player or a pure center; Aldridge can be guarded by guys who are long and athletic enough.
by nja700 on Nov 30, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
The whole team should do better individually stat wise because no one leaves their man to help. It’s easy to stay on your guy if he’s not a top 2 option and say “I got mine”, but that is the problem with this year no team effort on defense.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Curry??
If we wanted a short, shoot-first point guard, we shoulda kept Foye.
I would love to find out what Rambis would have done in last year’s draft. Maybe DeRozan instead of Flynn, and keep Lawson?
by Dave T on Nov 30, 2009 12:29 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Flynn is a short, shoot-first PG. Curry is not short for a PG, and has proven to be a much better facilitator than Flynn, who plays a smarter, more controlled game. Of course, before the draft the Wolves probably would have had a hard time rolling the dice on a potential Foye clone (in terms of a no position tweener).
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of 2nd rounders...
Why did we give Okl City our 2nd round pick this year to have them take our best interior defender? That pick will be 31 or 32, way more valuable to most teams than 24-30 in 1st round (no guarantee). That one baffled me then and still does.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 12:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Pure salary dump
That’s the only way it makes sense.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 30, 2009 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Somewhat off topic
but I applaud Zgoda for finally printing (in his notes column) what a number of us fans in the stands have been saying – mainly that our roster for this season does not have a lot of pure talent. I have felt the local media has spent way too much time gushing about future assets without acknowledging that most of the moves have resulted in a decrease in talent level on the current roster.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 1:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
JAF – wouldn’t you agree that Love and Jefferson’s injuries are, by far and away, the biggest reason for our early struggles? It sucks to watch this team, and it’s easy to complain when we lose so much, but Kahn didn’t deal away any impact players that would right this ship in Love’s absence and Jefferson’s recovery period. Foye and Miller would help some, but not much. They were awful to watch at the end of last year, and that was with a healthy Kevin Love. Let’s just be happy that Kahn hasn’t panicked into a short-sighted personnel move to keep fans happy in 2009. I’d much rather he continue the long-term play that has netted Ricky Rubio’s rights than start worrying that his current rebuilding team can’t compete without Kevin Love in the lineup.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
C’mon now, Randy Foye and Mike Miller would have made us competitive in the 1 game out of 5 that they actually showed up.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or were healthy
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Nov 30, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How `bout them Wiz?
Actually beat Cleveland without the erstwhile Wolves starting back court.
by levi_mn on Nov 30, 2009 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Washington just has Cleveland's number
Fate is fate.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Andy G
There is no doubt that we would struggle less with Love on board. He plays hard, is smart, and certainly has a knack for rebounding. All that helps. I still am not sure where his offensive talents lie – I don’t see him as a post up player and am not convinced he will be an outside shooter. Garbage points count, but I am guessing we need more.
I was on record here for 4-17 for the start of the season (before Love went down.) on the way to 20-25 wins. Too many new pieces to expect a strong start against a rather tough schedule.
The issue still revolves around a pretty badly imbalanced roster. Love and Al play the same position – at least on most NBA rosters. So do Sessions and Flynn. So do Gomes and Brewer. That leaves us with 2 gaping holes (a defensive 5 and a big 2 who can create his own shot). I am not sure the current roster has even back up talent for those positions.
So while Miller and Foye might not be the long term answer, they would temporarily fill the spots to make the roster more balanced. I think that helps develop the key guys – rather than having so many playing out of position. (I was fully in favor of the Smith move and Sessions for Telfair was an upgrade swap)
I think at some point, relatively soon (maybe this trade deadline – or this summer), we are going to need to trade either Big Al/KLove to get one of those gaping needs filled (hopefully the other one is filled in the draft. I remain pessimistic that we will get those needs through free agent signings.)
I still expect the team to struggle with KLove back in. But hopefully they will be more competitive.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m really glad you used “need” instead of “hole” for that last point.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Brewer and Gomes could easily fit on the same team
Brewer is a 2/3 while Gomes is a 3/4. You could play small or large with those two. And you also get one up-tempo player and one who plays more in a systematic style.
Love and Al can still be considered to play different positions, but their play style is too similar for them to fit. I still don’t think its a positional issue so much as a defensive and offensive style issue (both play post offense and can’t defend a quicker player).
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How much do we bank on Gomes though?
He sort of epitomizes a support player, and we already know Brewer won’t be better than a support player, and we need one of our wing players to be a dynamic scorer at the least.
Of the two, I favor Brewer, first, because while he’s not as solid all around as Gomes, he’s more dynamic in two areas…athletically and defensively. And second, because he’s more versatile in that he can be either a shooting guard or small forward. Gomes is strictly a small forward.
Al and Love’s problem isn’t so much similar games as similar body types. If one of them was 7 feet and had significant wingspan, we could probably get away with it….wouldn’t be ideal, but not the headache it is now.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I’m not saying I want them on my team together with the way we are currently set up, but the Spurs have proven that 2 support players can be starters (Bowen (a 2/3) and Finley (a 3/4kinda)) as long as there is talent on both sides of the court throughout the rest of the roster. We’d need our Tony Parker, Tim Ducan, and Manu off the bench, but these guys could definitely play together and fit.
I still don’t think our problems would be concealed by one of them having a longer wingspan. Jefferson’s is already plenty adequate for a center. We’d still get destroyed by guys like Dwight Howard, Nowitzki, Bargnani, Bosh, Okur, etc.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
With Brewer and Gomes out there
it’s an ideal team for a shoot first point guard(Curry would probably be better at this than Flynn, it’s harder to stop a guy who can score from anywhere) because both players do more when they do less, at least on offense. But, we have to be the number one team in player development, so we have to teach our pgs how to play as if their teammates typically hit a high percentage of their jumpers and are dangerous triple threats to the defense when given the ball in the proper position with the proper spacing. I guess if we ever get players like that, it’ll be good for our pgs to know how to play with them, but in the mean time….it kinda sucks. (And also, Curry would’ve been the better player development pick. Or Earl Clark)
I guess I should admire the bravery and forward thinking of planning ahead even if it does harm to the team’s short term goals. At least the team is not like a dog trying to run through a fence to get a ball because going around the fence requires it to temporarily move further away from its goal.
by oblivionspocket on Nov 30, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But not past this year
Signing Brewer’s option essentially ushered Gomes out the door. The cap implications of keeping Ryan on will mean he’s plying his trade elsewhere, unless Brewer himself is gone. We won’t have the cap room for a significant signing if you keep both of them.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
After some of the negative posts lately (not just yours, but many others’ as well) it feels like people have lost some site of the horrible injuries we’ve suffered, with Love being out completely and Jefferson playing through his ACL recovery.
I agree that the roster is imbalanced, but I have to give Kahn enough benefit of the doubt to think he understands that as well. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he envisions Love to be a 6th Man on this team. I think that’s a very reasonable expectation if we’re talking about building a title contender. Recent champions have had Lamar Odom and Manu Ginobili come off the bench. I’ll be happy if Love can become that caliber of player.
Regarding Flynn/Rubio/Sessions, that’s a harder one to judge. It clearly will depend on both Rubio and Flynn’s possible development into superstar point guards. The next two years will be enlightening, there.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
think that Kahn started the season believing that the roster was that badly imbalanced. He had a perspective that I thought was a little off – typified by his comments that Rubio and Flynn could play together.
But doubt that is the case any longer. While I thought Kahn to be a little naive, he is certainly not stupid. He sees the issues too.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My take is...
…we got lucky to get Rubio, but of course that means we don’t have Evans or Harden. We look much, much less unbalanced with one of those guys at the 2. And, of course, that was the plan as very few expected Rubio to be there at 5. I am thrilled with Rubio, but the finances of it all created the backwash of giving minutes to Wilkins and signing Pavlovic.
In other words, we look unbalanced in part because our 4 hasn’t played (a number 5 pick), and our hypothetical 2 in Evans or Harden or Curry(?) (also a 5 or 6 pick) got replaced when we were lucky enough to get Rubio. But Kahn’s plan was reasonable. We could be starting Flynn, Evans, Gomes, Love, Al with Sessions, Brewer, and Hollins off the bench. Not terrible and not so unbalanced, really.
Because there are no fours.
Toine
by CaliWolf on Nov 30, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
we too often forget that Kahn didn’t expect Rubio to be there, but once he was, how could he pass on him 2 picks in a row? He did what he did thinking he could shore up our lineup with Evans or Harden (both of whom will be good for years to come) along with Flynn. I really wouldn’t mind that lineup, but as you said, maybe we are better off in the long run the way it turned out. As we all talk about so much around draft time, you really do have to take the BPA at our stage of development and worry about fit later. Kahn played it correctly.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough with the Miller/Foye trade was bad. It was never the plan to have Rubio/Flynn. Sac screwed it all up.
by Far East on Dec 1, 2009 3:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree,
when Al gets healthy and Love comes back, that’ll be 2 guys who are more than role players on good teams. Not sure on Flynn yet, I fear he’ll be a short, look to score pt guard, without good decision making. Hope I’m wrong. The rest of the players are 6-10 on good teams. Has anyone seen Rubio on NBATV? They’ve aired 3 games so far. Interested in your take.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I think Wolves fans really overrate Love
I see him being maybe a half-step better than David Lee as a whole for his career.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a pretty wide spectrum of opinions on Kevin Love’s value, amongst Wolves fans, at least on this site. I fall closer to your end of it, but still feel like he’s a good player that would help this team compete every night, rather than get pummeled like they have been recently.
His return, combined with Jefferson’s gradual progress, should help make the games get progressively more fun to watch.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think he's a good player
But some people think he can be THE guy in the post for us…20ppg scorer and all that…and I just don’t agree with that at all. His limitations peg him more as a really high end support player in the mold of a Lee, Millsap or Lamar Odom.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oceanary
Your comments consistently demonstrate that you value one thing in player evaluation, and that is athleticism. That is why the guys you like on this team are Brewer, Hollins and Flynn. That is also why whenever I read a post on here that I disagree with enough to need to rebut, almost invariably you are the author. I’ll just accept it as a philosophical difference. But, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post by you that gives props to any one but your trio of athletes, the three folks who, to me, are least likely to be playing smart and in control.
Look, everyone has limitations, and maybe it’s easy to envision that a guy who is 7’3" or who can jump through the roof can overcome their limitations more readily than Love can add inches to his height or his vertical. However, not everyone who plays dumb or who can toss up a shooting % that might not win an MLB batting crown is going to put it together. Most won’t. And you don’t need to be the best athlete on the court to be the most effective player.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that opens up an argument of semantics...
But traditionally it is the athlete that gets the better of the smart player, at least when it comes to big men. And obviously there’s a lot of gray area in terms of what qualifies as a “smart player” versus an “athletic” player. Hollins is a very athletic player, but not smart. Love is very smart, but not athletic.
Now, how about Dwight Howard? Is he smart? Or just athletic? Lord knows he always gets the best of Jefferson, who is clearly not athletic. So does Oden, and I wouldn’t say Oden is smart, at least not yet. Nor Bynum. Pau Gasol? Very smart, but where do we rank his athleticism? It’s higher than average. So is Tim Duncan’s. But neither are D12, or even Hollins when it comes to physical abilities.
It obviously takes more than being just athletic, but it also takes more than being just smart. There’s never been a franchise big man who isn’t at least a step above average athleticism, and Love does not have above-average athleticism. People rave about his rebounding and varied skillset, but they say the same things about Lee and Odom, which is why I think Love will have a career comparable to Lee and Odom. Being a star player requires both, and Love doesn’t have both.
I mean some of you talk about Love like he’ll be Tim Duncan…
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oceanary,
did you ever see Larry Bird play? He’s 6-9. Duncan was never a great athlete. Was Kareem a great athlete, debatable, but he was a great player. Gasol has a great IQ for game. I see where you’re coming from but it’s a combo of the two as you said. Don’t disregard thinking the game especially in this era of better athletes than basketball players.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bird was most definitely not athletic
But he also played in a very different era. Bird himself basically admitted at the end of his career that the league was getting away from him.
The fact that no one has been able to equal Bird’s numbers until now with LeBron kind of shows how much more athletic and physical the league has become.
Which also, BTW, gets into that gray area again. Is LeBron as smart as Bird, etc etc
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not
But nor am I ignoring when a player very clearly lacks one of the two.
I mean, we all know there’s a long list of players who are athletic, but stupid as a brick and never make it because of that. Gerald Green is a poster boy of that. Which is why I said there’s a lot of gray area…JR Smith is very close to Gerald Green, but he does fine because….why? He’s 10% smarter? 20%? Can we even quantify it? Same with Gasol. Extremely high IQ player, but also more athletic than your average big man. Certainly more athletic than Jefferson or Love. Is he great because he’s smart? Or tall and athletic? Is he maybe 50% more athletic than say, Emeka Okafor? Or is Okafor 50% stupider?
Again, I think Love is a good player, but like S-n-P said at the beginning of the year, he’s a high end role player, not a go-to guy. He plays in the gaps created by the stars around him.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think your assessment differs much from the Hoopus consensus.
I’m not sure I’ve seen the “Love will be a Duncan-like star” attitude around here. I think for the most part, everyone here thinks Love will be an elite role player. But we’re just excited about that, because we know good teams have those kinds of players, and we don’t have anything else, really.
by LoveTo on Nov 30, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have seen it thrown around that people think Al is expendable due to Love, but that’s about the extent of it. It’s definitely putting words in peoples’ mouths to say that anyone is comparing him to Duncan (even if you’re obviously exaggerating) or expecting him to be a franchise post guy.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love compared to Duncan?
Come on, give Love some respect!
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I was exaggerating for sure
Just the fact that people think he’d make Jefferson expendable though I think overrates him. That’s where I’m getting the general impression from (which is something fans on a lot of other boards and blogs say too)
If we were to trade Jefferson and go with Love as the primary guy in the post, then we really would have a David Lee/Knicks situation.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If neither is a center
than by getting rid of either of them the assumption is that you bring in a center who might be the primary guy, not that you replace him with a wing and play Pecherov. But if Jefferson is glued to the low block, what center do you pair him with?
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Jefferson is glued to the low block
The past few years, he’s done fine again Gasol, Aldridge, Stoudemire, Lewis….certainly better than he’s done against Bynum, Oden, Shaq or Dwight Howard.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My point is
that he likes to set up on the low block on offense. That is where he is most effective when getting the ball. If you make him a 4, I don’t think you want to pair him with a center who also operates out of the low post.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Al as expendable
I think is less about saying that Love is a better player/talent than Al, and more of a reflection on how much a given system will accentuate or limit a given player’s skill set. Based on what we’ve seen last year I think most people agree that Love’s game is well adapted to thrive in the triangle offense, whereas Al’s is a work in progress.
Also, my two cents on the athleticism bit-sure, it can be devastating when you know how to play. But for every Lebron there’s at least a dozen Gerald Greens that sniffed the NBA, and at least a dozen dozen who didn’t even make it. My point is that the Lebrons, DWades, and CP3’s of the world would still be good, productive basketball players even if they didn’t have superior athleticism. Put KLove in LMA’s body and he’d be a superstar. Just sayin’.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 30, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But not star players
That’s what I’m getting at
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I guess I agree with some of the others in that I don’t believe that superior athleticism, in and of itself, makes one a star player or is even the primary reason a given player is a superstar. As you pointed out earlier, it’s a mix of athleticism and the ability to use it (smarts, IQ, whatever). Put another way, superior athleticism is the great ceiling elevator for players who would already be good anyways (like Kevin Love).
I would also point out that, for me at least, I’m open to the idea that the Rockets right now represent a new change in the NBA. Scola and Battier are the ‘stars’ of that team in that they allow Ariza and Brooks to star, and even then Ariza and Brooks aren’t really stars. Without Yao and TMac, who’s the go-to guy on the Rockets? Point is, as I see it, the Rockets are demonstrating a new way to be competitive in the league that-so far-has held its own against the superstar driven model that dominates most player personnel team construction. I think it’s easier if you fall into a DWade, CP3, or ’Melo, but it will be interesting to see where the Rockets end up.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 30, 2009 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm very intruiged by the Rockets
I’m also watching to see if their makeup is something sustainable.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I have seen so far
is that Houston has just a good of chance of beating, and losing, to any team on any given night.
In the NBA, that is not a statement you want associated with you if you are a championship caliber team. Championship teams see ~40 games as guaranteed victories against the bottom feeders (even with the occasional upset like Denver last night) and fight it out with the top teams over the other 40.
Houston wins when 5-6 players play above their average – they lose when only 2-3 play above their average. LA wins most games where Kobe plays above his average – independent of the other players. LA wins sometimes when Kobe plays below his average.
That is a HUGE difference and is something that you see in the NBA – the effect that 1 star player can have on the win loss record.
I predict a 6th place finish at 45-39 for Houston and a 1st round playoff exit.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LA wins
most of the time when Kobe plays below average. That team is stacked. Same as the Celtics still won most of the games without KG last year. Obviously LA would rather have him play average or above every night, but they really don’t suffer too often if he doesn’t. There are 6 other guys more than capable of picking up the slack. Most teams can only say they have 1 other guy and maybe 2.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
(and I am not a hater) the Celtics statement would be more about if Pierce, not KG, plays above average the Celtics win. I always felt that KG was much better as 2nd fiddle (successfully to Cassell and Pierce) than as primary option.
Basketball plays with the fewest players of all the major team sports. It gives the teams with a true superstar a significant advantage to dominate play. With the exception of the 03-04 Pistons, we have not had a team in the last 25 years win the NBA title without a top 50 of all time player. In fact, many had 2. I really don’t see that changing.
So, I wish Houston luck in break the paradigm. I am just not very optimistic they will.
by Just A Fan on Nov 30, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
KG is a primary fiddle
the entire game. Just not the guy who is gonna carry the scoring load. That is why he is the perfect teammate, but he is just not the guy who is gonna win you the close games, he is just gonna be the one making sure you are in it.
That’s why the Wolves woes while he was here were with finishing games. Even when we had significantly less talent, KG would at the very least keep us in the game. I think that is more valuable. Just an opinion though, I think Pierce will win more close games for you, he just might not keep as many games close enough for him to win.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
Nobody gave Houston a chance in the playoffs last year, and they still gave LA everything they could handle. I guess it’s sort of like the Twins vs the Yankees/Bosox/Angels bit-one makes it work and competes on a smaller budget while the others spend $10 million+ in luxury tax each year in order to buy all the talent they can, well, they should win more often than not.
For those of us not in a position to pay an exorbitant premium in order to have the right to go way over the cap in signing players, Houston provides an interesting model to watch over the coming seasons.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Nov 30, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the description
Athleticism raises your ceiling more than intelligence, but intelligence raises your floor more than athleticism? Does that sound right (we have to ignore the obvious issues here of course to make it work)?
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shouldn't be forgotten, though...
That the Rockets have cap space for next year (Yao has a player option but they still would be $15 mil under). It’ll be interesting to see who they go after.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 30, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
If we replace Jefferson with Love at the 4. We can use Hollins for the more athletic 5’s and Pekovic for the stronger bruisers. The question then comes with Love’s ability to defend the athletic 4’s. His lesser athletic ability is not as obvious when guarding 5’s because they are generally slower, but it could work. It’s not that he has to win every matchup at every position, the goal is to have a team that wins most of the matchups, and there are 5 different ones of the floor at a time.
Not saying that I endorse the idea, but there are ways to make it work. Generally this line of thinking sounds like an attempt to fill MORE holes than to fill them well. I guess it really will be determined by what his trade value is.
by Cedarpenguin on Nov 30, 2009 7:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll back up Oceanary here
First I think you are making far too large of an assumption of his preferences just because of what he posts about. Second, I also think Love will cap off as a 15-20ppg scorer, closer to 15. He doesn’t have the athleticism to get his own shot with regularity. But he is extremely athletic, not in the current sense of “jump high, run fast” but in the more traditional sense of “strong as an ox, quick in small areas, and smart” (yes, an athletic skill). With today’s style of NBA play, we obviously favor what I called the current sense because guys like Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Howard, CP3, and Bosh, etc etc are the stars over guys like Battier. It’s tough to say these guys aren’t smart players, but their advantage obviously comes from [skillful] athleticism.
To Oceanary though, I would just point out Larry Bird as a franchise player who isnt even remotely athletic.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think savvy and smarts are the same as athletic — there are great NBA players that aren’t great athletes. Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki and Chauncey Billups fall into that category.
But those guys have the size and skills to make bigtime plays with the ball, despite being average athletes. Love hasn’t shown that yet. It’s fair to question whether he will. It seems more likely that he’ll be “just” a good player that can fit in next to star players. He probably won’t be a guy that can be leaned on in big moments.
Regardless, he’d be a major upgrade over the guys filling in for him right now.
by Andy G on Nov 30, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
Just getting Love’s rebounding back will be huge for us. Jefferson is having trouble getting to loose balls because of his knee, Hollins because of his weight, and well, Pech only grabs rebounds that basically smack him him the face.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you're right
Being intelligent is not the same as being athletic by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s pretty easy to see that being intelligent, like being strong, are both abilities that can be encompassed by the word “athletic”. There needs to be a combination of these atributes to truly become athletic. Which is why Einstein wasn’t an athlete, and Schwarzenegger isn’t an athlete. It’s also why Gerald Green and Rashad McCants are no longer paid to be athletes. Are they athletic? Yes. As I said before though, you need more than one and ideally, all of the above to truly be a great athlete. I’m one of the faster people I know, but I’m not athlete. It helps when I play sports because I can usually be relatively effective because of it, but not really having strength or great coordination/body control make it difficult to be considered an athlete.
Anywho, I got a little too far into that, intelligence is a portion of athleticism, a small portion, but one nonetheless.
Also, I’d have to disagree about Paul Pierce not being a great athlete:
Quickness check, Strength check, smarts check, body control check, coordination check, speed check, jumps check. He isn’t a player who will wow you with his ability to jump through the roof or beat Barbosa in a footrace, but he has a steady combination of all of those things.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Duncan
Last time I checked, his vertical was sitting at around an inch. He’s totally strength and fundamentals, something that bodes well for Love. Though, he has more strength, size, and fundamentals than Love. Love won’t even come close to Duncan, Duncan’s just a solid counterpoint to the “athlete” paradigm.
by nja700 on Nov 30, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan's a lot more athletic than that
Or at least he used to be. He’s had a lot of leg injuries that have robbed him of his athleticism, but to say that Love compares to Duncan’s peak athleticism is really selling Timmah short.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan’s never been about athleticism in the run/jump sense. His dominance was from his combo of skills and excellent size/length. Not that he’s a slouch, but he’s similar to Pau in that he’s very coordinated and skilled to go with being a true 7’ with above-average length.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The 7' definitely helps
If Love was 7’, he’d probably be arguably the best big man in the NBA right now (and also a Blazer).
Height is another part of what I mean when I talk about Love’s limitations.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that his athleticism has been mitigated by injury
But even post-peak Timmy is dominant. I’m just saying that he’s never needed that to be a major force. I’m the recent/current Timmy template.
And like Xand1 says below, he’s never really been one to rely on any sort of explosivess to base his game around. He’s been pretty quick for his size, but his hallmarks were the fundamentals/strength/size combo and therefore I think that means that Love will at least be decent despite his limitations. This leaves him a high floor and a solid ceiling.
by nja700 on Nov 30, 2009 5:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing
Athleticism definitely helps. I never intended to argue against this fact. And the lack of athleticism is a limitation. It certainly limits Love. But, where is this limit? Sure, if you start looking at the all-time greats you see an awful lot of great athletes. And maybe (maybe) the days where a guy like Bird can be dominant are gone. But for the most part, there aren’t a lot of unstoppable guys in the league right now. There’s no reason Love couldn’t make an All Star team. The odds are probably against it, but it’s always better t bet the field. I certainly believe that he has a better chance than Flynn.
My biggest gripe is that skill (not just smarts) is overlooked when the only criteria is athleticism. And reading the posts from Oceanary, I take in a lot of praise for stacking up on guys who are low on skill but high on athleticism or size. And the debate at that point is not about Love or Jefferson vs. Howard (that’s not a tough one), but Love vs. Hollins, or Love vs. Brewer. I can’t stand to see Love dismissed as a role player by anyone who thinks Brewer belongs on a starting rotation. Or someone saying that Jefferson can’t play better post defense than Hollins because of height or athleticism. (It’s because of effort, but that’s a different post).
From where I stand basketball is still a skill game. You don’t want a team of guys who can’t create their own shots, but there are still ways to run an offense that will make those guys effective if they can hit a shot when open.
by dropstep on Nov 30, 2009 10:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Basketball will always be a skill game
That will never change. Love is an NBA starter, I have no doubt about that. Where I differ with most Wolves fans is his ceiling, which quite frankly, I don’t think is very high, yes, because of his limitations. He’s not athletic. He’s not tall. He doesn’t have great wingspan or footspeed. That’s a tough combination to break into the star category with, regardless of your skill level. If you really think about it, the only power forward like that who was more than a role player was, well, Kevin McHale.
And if you’re going to base starting jobs in comparison to players at other positions, I mean that’s really a tough argument to make. Certainly Love is better than Corey. But it’s not about who’s the better individual player, it’s about how they fit into the team. That’s like asking why Shane Battier starts when Carl Landy comes off the bench behind Chuck Hayes.
Corey starts because he fills a role we need to have filled and he’s the only one that can do it. It’s arguable whether Love is the only one that can fill the role he plays, or if that role is even necessary. If I appear to favor Hollins, it’s not because I think his athleticism makes him better than Love. It’s because he adds a dimension to the team that we otherwise don’t have. What does Love give us that Jefferson doesn’t already give us?
By no means am I saying skill is unimportant or that athleticism is the only thing that matters. Merely that a lack of athleticism limits a player’s potential. As Mplax said, skill raises your floor, but athleticism determines your ceiling. Given Love’s limitations, I very much feel he tops out as a high end role player, and he compares most closely with other high end role players…the gap between him and big men who are stars is pretty big, and has a lot to do with things Love can’t make up for. And that’s not to say that Love is a bad player or that I don’t think he’s any good. Merely that I don’t think he’s a guy that can or should be asked to carry the post scoring part of our team.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where we disagree
Athleticism doesn’t determine everyone’s ceiling. It might determine the type of player they will be, but not really their ceiling. Do you think that there are no stars in this league, that have the phrase “not great athletes” stamped in their scouting report?
by dropstep on Dec 1, 2009 12:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the list of power forwards who are 6'8"...
…unathletic, slow, have short wingspans, average footwork, and become star players is blank.
What I’m saying is Love will be solid. Not spectacular. There’s really nothing about him that says he’ll be any better than David Lee.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 12:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What
Craig Smith isn’t a star?
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 1, 2009 8:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no sense beating this to death
but I will say this. Love is 5-6 years younger than Lee. By the end of the year, paying with no help from the offense he was essentially putting up the same scoring numbers as Lee. His upside comes from developing consistency on his outside shot and learning what guys like Flynn spend their entire lives working on, scoring inside against bigger folks.
You see Love as having the same ceiling as Lee, because to you athleticism and size determines the ceiling. So, it’s a no brainer. That’s fine. It’s all conjecture. What I object to is this hand wringing over athleticism, thinking we need a center who can go toe to toe with Howard, a wing who can shut down Kobe, a PF who will neutralize both the bruising and the swift jump shooting 4s etc. In pursuing this goal you can keep trotting out wildly athletic guys with reportedly unlimited ceilings who will never be as effective as guys like Love (or Lee).
Again, this is just a philosophical approach. It’s when someone with that basic idea slips on the goggles so that all judgment is clouded by this vision. At that point, all one can see is Flynn’s 40" vertical, Thabeet’s wingspan, or Darrius Heyward Bey’s 40 time, and their actual skill and performance wash away in a sea of what might be. At that point, Hollins becomes the teams best post defender because he really has to be.
by dropstep on Dec 1, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do look forward to getting Love back on the court
We definitely need his rebounding, and he will help us get to the free throw line more often.
Plus, it’s hard to move forward without the team healthy. Whether it’s building chemistry or making trades, Kahn isn’t going to do anything until the whole team is 100%.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
...includes guys like...
…Dan Issell, Dave Cowens, and Wes Unseld.
But they are from a different era — when 7-footers were rare and usually not deployed as power forwards next to another 7 footer playing center.
The sad truth is that Kevin Love’s true height is significantly less than 6’8".
by levi_mn on Dec 1, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Untrue
He’s not one of those guys whom is listed at 6’9 and is really 2-3 inches shorter. He is in fact 6’9" and 1/2. What you said rings true for guys like Craig Smith or Chuck Hayes maybe. But Kevin is exactly as listed.
Here’s an excerpt from the DraftExpress Pre-Draft Camp Measurements: “Kevin Love measured out reasonably well—6-9 ½ in shoes (6-7 ¾ without), with a 6-11 ¼ wingspan and an 8-10 standing reach. His body fat is still very high at 12.9%, but in the combine he jumped 35 inches, lifted the 185 bar 18 times, and ran very well (11.17, 3.22)”
So he’s slightly undersized, strong, average standing reach and wingspan, and is quicker/faster than we think. Is he “athletic” in the way we usually use it? No. Is he especially tall? Nein. Those two things in conjunction hurt. But he’s not an unathletic 6’6 guy.
by nja700 on Dec 1, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparison
Standing reaches/max vert/max height:
Greg Oden – 9’-4" / 34" / 12’-2"
LMA – 9’-2" / 34" / 12’-0"
KLove – 8’-10" / 35" / 11’-9"
AlJeff – 9’-2" / 30" / 11’-8"
David Lee – 8’-10.5" / 32.5" / 11’-7"
Craig Smith – 8’-7.5" / 29.5" / 11’-1"
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 1, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Oceanary's point stands...
“Love will be solid. Not spectacular.”
He will almost always be at a disadvantage, physically. And from time to time, especially in later rounds of the playoffs, he will be matched against guys who are not only bigger but have the same qualities wrt rebounding and game sense.
by levi_mn on Dec 1, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa there!
Kevin McHale: not athletic, not tall, lacking a great wingspan and footspeed? Wrong on all counts.
He was a physical freak, with disproportionately long arms, prototypical height, and the quickness to guard opposing teams’ best forward (SF or PF) every night. He made six All-NBA Defensive teams; look it up.
by John Doe on Dec 1, 2009 1:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a relative comparison
McHale being those things compared to say, Ralph Sampson, Charles Barkley or Shawn Kemp.
Although the comparison then is even worse for Love, since if he’s not as tall, athletic, or quick as McHale was, then he’s even more limited than I said.
I guess maybe a better way to go about this is to ask you guys who you think Love compares to.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 2:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
…mchale was a physical marvel. before he broke his foot he could cover guards.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Dec 1, 2009 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What does Love give us that Jefferson doesn’t already give us?
A big that can pass?
A big that tries on defense?
A big with court awareness on both sides of the ball?
by WinTheLottery on Dec 1, 2009 8:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why the question marks? Jefferson fails epically on all three of those points.
by levi_mn on Dec 1, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Again I will defend Oceanary here
I think you are taking what he says way out of context. And while there is definitely a difference of opinion here, I think most of the debate is coming out of a small misunderstanding.
That said, Oceanary got it spot on about Corey. He is a starter on a good team whereas Love might not be (he probably is). Brewer is an elite defensive player and should always be guarding the Kobes/Roys/Wades/etc while on the floor. He can’t be doing that against the other team’s bench. That’s why guys like Ronnie Brewer, Bruce Bowen, Aaron Afflalo, etc etc start ahead of their more offensively (and maybe overall) skilled counterparts.
I think (just my opinion, maybe you two disagree here too and this might help you solve this?) skill is something entirely different. Like I said above, there are things that encompass athleticism like speed, agility, strength, and so on. This is the same thing with skill. I think athleticism is one aspect of skill and maybe I was wrong in defining IQ as athleticism for a lack of a better place to put it. Maybe IQ falls under skill right next to athleticism. I don’t think skill is overlooked at all. When we are saying people are the alltime greats it is because we think they were some of the most skilled players in the game. It’s just that we call them the best instead of actually saying, “This guy has the most skill”
Maybe I got this all wrong, but it’s my opinion and this might help you guys solve your differences? I really do think most of it is just a misunderstanding.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 11:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, that's what I meant earlier when I said it gets into semantics
It’s hard to define skill versus athleticism and how much of one versus the other a player has and how much on versus the other affects the kind of player he is. Unless it’s an extreme case of one or the other, like Love or Hollins.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 12:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 more cents
I think Love is a starter on winning teams. Someone made a comment on KG being the ultimate team player, well Love is in that mold. Things work better when he’s on the floor, even if it’s not always reflected in the box score. That’s why Wilkens is playing so much right now.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 1, 2009 8:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That was me
but I’d have to say I was using it in a different context. KG (in his prime) was the ultimate team player in that he kept his entire team in the game until the very end, where he then had to give up the reigns to a guy like Pierce/Cassell. Doesn’t mean Cassell is better than KG or Pierce either (I would argue), but it means that they were crucial to his success just like a guy who could finish his passes is also crucial to his success.
Love on the other hand, will do a TON of things to help the team out, but he wont take them on his back and keep them in the game by himself. Or maybe I am wrong and he will come back and completely prove me wrong… I hope!
by Mplax on Dec 1, 2009 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
That’s a good distinction worth pointing out. My personal take on Love is that he doesn’t really fit any stereotypes and by the end/middle of his career will have kind of written his own spot. Kind of like Battier didn’t have a stereotypical role or spot before that NYTimes article basically created the “Battier” type player. I agree that Love isn’t going to hoist a team on his back, a la KG, isn’t going to take over games (a la Pierce/Allen/Cassell), and isn’t going to be your primary or even secondary option. But to me he’s clearly more than a role player and more than a sixth man. The closest similar guy I can think, not necessarily in terms of stats or skillsets but in terms of writing their spot on the court, is either Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman. Again, I’m not saying that Love is like those guys skills-wise (although there are some similarities); I am saying that neither of those two guys really had templates for their roles coming into the league and created one for themselves.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Dec 1, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can easily see Love as a starter on a playoff team
But it has to be with the right center, and that’s certainly not Jefferson.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Love is an asset to any
and every team in this league. Some he would start and some he wouldn’t. I don’t think he is necessarily a guaranteed starter on a championship team (like the Lakers or Celtics teams that are just absolutely stacked, Rasheed Wallace and Odom don’t even start), but I do think he is a probable starter on most teams as they stand. Certainly on the Wolves he is and hopefully will be when we get to that point.
by Mplax on Dec 1, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
missing the obvious
nja700, I can’t see how you can say that Duncan has “more strength, size, and fundamentals than Love” and then go on to conclude that “Love won’t even come close to Duncan”.
Duncan right now has the same weight and a one-inch height difference; I say “right now” because Love, at 21 yrs. old, is still growing… and I would bet on Love already being the physically stronger of the two.
People, we’re overlooking one incredibly important factor: discounting Rubio, Love continues to be the youngest player on this team. I think he has every chance to supercede Duncan in every sense as a player and not just as a superior rebounder. The comparison is apt because they already have a similar playing style and K-Love over the summer was putting in time on improving his quickness and his mid-range jumper. I honestly can’t think of a better potential front court tandem than Love and Jefferson unless it’s the Celtics’. Last year, aided by Rhino’s efficient offensive contribution, they dominated points in the paint, and this despite their defensive limitations (IMHO, often overstated).
In any case, Love already has a real work ethic, smarts and strength, and a rebounding ability among the best in the league. As for body control, bravura, and quickness (Pierce’s forte), he may yet develop these and indeed become a better player than Duncan ever was.
He has twelve years to prove he can.
by artreddin on Nov 30, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You really think Love will be a better player than Duncan?
See this is what I mean when I say Wolves fans talk about Love like he’s Duncan. They talk about Love like he’s Duncan.
First, Love is not just an inch shorter than Duncan. He measured 6’7" without shoes. Duncan measured 6’11" without shoes. So basically 6’8" versus 7’. And if anything, Love plays shorter than he is.
Second, Love and Jefferson are not better than Bynum and Gasol. Or Oden and Aldridge. Or Stoudemire and Frye. Or Howard and Lewis. Or Duncan and whoever the Spurs start at center on any given night. A more apt comparison would probably be Nene and Kenyon Martin, or Randolph and Marc Gasol, or Boozer and Okur. C’mon. The best of any team except the Celtics? KG isn’t even that good this year.
Third, the chances Love is a consistent 20ppg scorer, much less a 25ppg scorer, is basically zero. The chance he’s the franchise player on a multiple championship team? LITERALLY zero.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and that's not even mentioning that Love will never...
…ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER be even half the defensive player Duncan is.
by Oceanary on Dec 1, 2009 12:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agreed with the guys they're not better than
Except for Frye and Stoudemire. The other guys are much better, but these two are a pretty easy act to beat. They can run, jump and shoot. Not much else.
by nja700 on Dec 1, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
read it how you want
You’ve taken me up on how Love is not better than Duncan. This may be true, but is not a fair reading of what I wrote. The main point, and you’ve not addressed this at all, is that Love has just turned 21, twelve full years younger than Duncan. Even if he takes four years to reach his maximum he could still have a good eight years at elite player status.
As for your other points, the height measurements are taken directly from NBA.com/playerfile which show both players at 260 pounds and Duncan with a one-inch height advantage… for now. Where are you getting your data? Maybe you can provide something on their wingspan, which I suspect is about equal, but am open to be proven otherwise.
As far as the tandem of Jefferson and Love, if you check out the stats for the month and a half when they were together under McHale, you’ll see a serious advantage in points in the paint over other teams except for the Celtics, even over the Lakers. What other playing time do we have to judge by?
And this despite the team getting killed on the perimeter, with the interior defence having to scramble yet stay out of foul trouble, against driving PG’s like Parker.
So, we agree to disagree. For my part I have every expectation that Love will indeed be a 20-10 player within two years. I don’t know what his defensive ceiling is. I do know that rebounds are a big part of what makes a good defensive player and he already has this.
That this is would be so on a championship team some day is impossible to predict. I’ve had the TWolves down for fifteen wins this year since mid summer as I felt then, as I do now, that this team has just too many projects. Check out my other posts.
by artreddin on Dec 2, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at Love next to Jefferson
Love is visibly shorter. Jefferson isn’t even as tall as Duncan. And I’d think if anything, Love is listed taller than he is and Duncan shorter.
I’d also have to believe Love is done growing. Most people are done around 18-20. Then again, maybe he isn’t most people.
by Mplax on Dec 3, 2009 1:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I certainly hope you are right, but I’d have to give this a 0% chance of happening. Love is a tremendous player and is still developing, but he will not be Duncan (who Simmons [over]rates in the top 10 of all time). Duncan was so good because of his combination of everything he had. Athleticism (which was indeed underrated), IQ, fundamentals, great coaching, size, mobility, and defense. I’m sure I’m even missing some things here. Love doesn’t have quite the same athleticism (yes he is strong…. but Dunan might have him beat in every other aspect of the word), not quite the same fundamentals (can’t get his own shot off as easily, nor with the same calm), not yet the same coaching, not nearly the same size per position, not quite the mobility, and not nearly the defense. IQ is the only thing Love really matches Duncan on (assuming he will develop from where he is as a rookie).
Like I said, I hope you are right, but I just don’t see this.
by Mplax on Dec 1, 2009 12:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think even the most optimistic Twolves fans
Would be ecstatic if even approaches Timmy. The guy is just as good as Love or better in almost every way. Tim is one of the best post of all time and I can honestly say I find the possibility that Kevin Love will be an all-time great on the level of Tim is pretty remote. Even better than Tim? Absolutely not. All those positive things and time can make him an All-Star, but not an all-timer.
Tim Duncan is seven feet tall. I’m Kevin’s age, and I’m no longer growing. I doubt he will improve on 6’9" and a half. Tim’s also blessed with longer arms, athleticism, more skill, and just as much strength. He was far better the instant he came into the league than Love was at the same time.
by nja700 on Dec 1, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan played four years of college ball
not that it really changes anything as far as Love having little to no chance to match Duncan’s performance goes. Still, Love is slightly younger( by about a year and a half) than Duncan was at the start of his rookie season, the rookie season in which he was the rookie of the month every month. Actually, it’s kind of interesting that Duncan was only 17 for most of a pretty successful freshman year. Anyway, I guess we can compare Love to Duncan if he averages around 21 points, 12 rebounds,2.5 assists and 2.5 blocks(crude stats, I know) this season while playing good defense.
by oblivionspocket on Dec 1, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I figure that love
will match the rebounds, have fewer points and blocks and more assists for his career.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 2, 2009 7:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your comparisons don't work that awfully well
Sometime try tinkering around with the “Season Finder” feature on basketball-reference.com. Love is much more interesting than you’re giving him credit for, leaving alone the “How good is he? Is he an alpha dog?” spectrum.
Love, as a rookie rebounder, had very very few peers in NBA history. That’s in the NBA and the ABA, ever, since the 1940s. Look at any of the deeper stats, and it comes through loud and clear. There are 7 names on that list, gathered using “rookie year, rebounding percentage at around Love’s, played 1500 minutes.” Love’s a smidge below Charles Oakley and just above Shaq as a rebounder.
That boarding does not usually come packaged with someone who has excellent hands in terms of passing, or with someone who warms up shooting half- and full-court shots. On that list of rookie rebounders like him, Buck Williams is as close to a fluid scorer as we see.
He has a chance to be a really cool player, and I’d like him to get back on the court to find out.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m trying to wrap my head around what type of player he can/will ultimately become, and it’s pretty interesting. The first thing that pops to mind is Troy Murphy in that he’s also a beastly rebounder who can score, but even that’s not all that accurate. KLove isn’t a 3 bomber, he’s better at getting to the line, he throws outlets and he should be a stronger, better scorer inside.
I really think it’s possible he turns into something like a pretty efficient 18/12 guy who doesn’t need plays run through him but can take advantage of mismatches that come his way. He’ll kills you with his J if he’s open and pick you apart if you pay too much attention to him. If we can get the right cast around him I think he’s going to be a really fun player to follow.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Dec 1, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say he averages
more like 15-16 pts and 12 rebounds for his career while being a complementary offensive player who gets garbage points and takes advantage of mismatches in the triangle to get his points.
Like several people have said, he is the ultimate glue guy in that he doesn’t require lots of touches to get his points and adds possessions to his team’s chances to win without really demanding anything of himself.
He will never be able to carry a team like Duncan…but who is asking him to? He will be a solid contributor as a starter on any team that he plays on, but likely won’t be the star on a contending team (at least not top 2).
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 2, 2009 7:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Love
is a better passer, shooter and overall player than Lee. If Love is a 14 pt 10 reb guy on a playoff team I’d take that.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
disagree
Personally I think Wolves fans really overrate Love
I see him being maybe a half-step better than David Lee as a whole for his career.
so you actually see us not going undefeated the rest of the year when Love returns? Wow, controversial, takes all kinds I guess. We’ll have to agree to disagree
by Son of Gerald Green on Nov 30, 2009 2:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
We're not undefeated right now
And to get an accurate judgment, we’d have to replace Jefferson with Love, not just add him back.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless
our wing and point guard play improves, you could add 25 year old Shaqtus and our win total wouldn’t improve much. Our outside shooting is terrible which clogs paint for big fella’s. Love will rebound the ball on both ends to hopefully get a couple put back hoops and maybe start a break or two on defensive board outlet. That will make games at least watchable. This being down 20 at half is no fun.
by Conned on Nov 30, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m hoping he’ll be automatic from midrange this year as well. If he can just start knocking down his jumpers, his value will skyrocket.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
by Xand1 on Nov 30, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a bold statement
to say a 25 year old Shaq wouldn’t help us much.
I don’t think Shaq in his prime could have found a team of NBA scrubs bad enough to only bring him to 2 wins out of 17 games. And that’s why he is one of the greatest to ever play the game. Same as a team with Lebron will always be a borderline playoff team at the worst.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, he went to the Finals with Penny, 3D and an over-the-hill Horace Grant prior to that. Safe to say the current Wolves would give that squad absent Shaq a pretty good run.
by Punisher#8 on Nov 30, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of role players though
And Hardaway (RIP his career) was a tremendous talent before the injuries. Possibly the Magic2.0. I don’t want to say 2.0, but I don’t know what else to call it, Magic is still better, but just older. 6’7’’ PG with handles and athleticism with understanding for the game. With we could have seen his career longer.
by Mplax on Nov 30, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When Shaq was 25, he had just joined the Lakers and was averaging 26-12
And that was after having basically singlehandedly carried the magic to the Finals, beating Jordan’s Bulls along the way.
So I’m going to have to vehemently disagree with that statement.
by Oceanary on Nov 30, 2009 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love vs Al
Once again we’re seeing the comments that Al is not suited to the triangle, but Love is. We just don’t know that yet. I can’t ever see Love being ‘the man’ down low. Too many physical restrictions. As for the comments on Larry Bird, Bird and Magic were the acknowledged stars of college ball prior to the NBA. Both played on teams where they dominated, but were known for involving everyone else on their teams. Magic was the freak, a 6’9" natural point guard, but Bird was the epitome of the point-forward. The offense flowed, and quickly, through him. He was also a lights out passer and shooter. Love’s game is nothing like Bird’s game. And discounting big Al is risky. He has the best low post moves in the NBA. ANY team would love to have him.
by ogishkemuncie on Nov 30, 2009 9:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The one thing similar between Love and Bird
is their grittiness. Bird would knock someone’s teeth out to get a loose ball or rebound. He had an unparalleled blend of blue collar work ethic, b-ball IQ, and flat out skill.
by Rascal Flatts on Nov 30, 2009 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, let's see
Love’s odd set of skills may make him ideal for the offense, but then I’d have said Gomes stood to perform well under Rambis. So far Ryan Gomes has blown up last game in a decidedly un-triangleesque performance, and otherwise looked pretty out of whack.
(Nobody at all would make a comparison between Magic Johnson and Love. Bird and Love would be one of those “They’re white” comparisons. Wally Szczerbiak was Glen Rice redux, not Larry Bird.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Dec 1, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Triangle
was not used much the last few games, thank goodness. Triangle doesn’t fit this team at all. You need your top 2 players to able to play all 5 spots effectively (MJ Scotty Kobe Lamar) and it’s a wing driven offense that needs shooters at point guard spots (not Sessions or Flynn’s strength). Love can play triangle well but team would still suffer with this as primary offensive set. Love is only 20 years old, he’ll get better and with the league going more athletic I think Love’s B-ball IQ will be more valuable than ever. He has what you need to excel in NBA, great hands, good small area quicks, toughness and high IQ. When AL gets to 100% they should be able to at least compete and keep the games close on a nightly basis…. I hope.
by Conned on Dec 1, 2009 1:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 














