This Team Needs to Attack the Rim on Offense

[p00ka]

This makes perfect sense - The Raptors are the greatest 34 win team in the history of the sport.

The "34 win team crap" again. To paint this team, going into this year vs last year, as a 34 win team, is Dick & Jane kindergarten level reasoning. Before you ask, I can't be bothered to point out all the different factors again. It's simplistic crap, man.

[p00ka]

I'm surprised it took so many replies before someone stated the obvious. The original thread post says we have better offensive players, better defensive players and equal rebounding to a team that won 57 games....if that is true, then either George Karl is the greatest coach (was let go by the team) or that Casey is the worst coach; I personally believe neither to be true.


A big part of the Nuggets success that cannot be duplicated is that they play in Denver with the elevation. Don't think that's a big factor? Denver went 38-3 at home last year and were 3 games under .500 on the road (19-22). That is too big of a disparity to ignore.

Having moved from virtual sea level to same elevation as Denver, I can vouch for the effects. There is no question in my mind that it gives the Nuggets an advantage in home games. And many do forget it. That being said, the topic was TALENT, not how many wins to expect.

[LBF]

Stupid tanking threads..ugh

[mcHAPPY]

Actually I did not say they're taking the team nowhere thanks for adding that in on your own.

Yes if you cannot find good deals for them you could look to trade other assets in order to acquire player(s) that would make the team more competitive. Just like we might be looking to trade Gay/Lowry, other teams who are currently/in the future could be considering rebuilding could be looking to move their players for picks, expirings and prospects as well.

34-41 wins is not the promised land.

I also don't think it is a stepping stone but rather a ceiling... 41 that is

[Xixak]

Wait... You're willing to hold on to these guys - even though you seem resigned to the position that they're taking this team nowhere - until the right offer comes along... until the end of their careers?!?

It's about winning basketball games, and subsequently, championships. It's not an asset management competition.

Actually I did not say they're taking the team nowhere thanks for adding that in on your own.

Yes if you cannot find good deals for them you could look to trade other assets in order to acquire player(s) that would make the team more competitive. Just like we might be looking to trade Gay/Lowry, other teams who are currently/in the future could be considering rebuilding could be looking to move their players for picks, expirings and prospects as well.

[Fully]

Wrong. Anti-tankers are not concerned with that. What anti-tankers have a problem with is short-changing ourselves on a player in order to try and achieve some other goal. It's poor asset management. You should always be trying to maximize the value of an asset. If that means you have to wait till the deadline a full-season or maybe even the end of their careers to move Gay/Lowry then you do it.

I also find it hilarious that you try to act as if you're impartial, when you are clearly a pro-tanker.

Wait... You're willing to hold on to these guys - even though you seem resigned to the position that they're taking this team nowhere - until the right offer comes along... until the end of their careers?!?

It's about winning basketball games, and subsequently, championships. It's not an asset management competition.

[Xixak]

That's the bottom line on these forums. This is why the circle keeps turning on discussions of tank/no-tank, Gay/Derozan/Lowry, etc. One sub-section of fans thinks quite highly of the current roster, and the other sub-section sees significant flaws.

Never the twain shall meet.

LOL. You keep on doing what you do, Xix... it's a beautiful thing in some ways.

Lol ok jeff.

[jimmie]

I didn't want this to be a tanking thread but Jimmie had to go and make it one.

LOL. You keep on doing what you do, Xix... it's a beautiful thing in some ways.

[jimmie]

No I don't.

Yes, you do.

Hamster, meet wheel...

[Xixak]

I didn't want this to be a tanking thread but Jimmie had to go and make it one.

That's the bottom line on these forums. This is why the circle keeps turning on discussions of tank/no-tank, Gay/Derozan/Lowry, etc. One sub-section of fans thinks quite highly of the current roster, and the other sub-section sees significant flaws.

Never the twain shall meet.

[Nilanka]

Ughh....this back and forth pseudo philosophical discussion is getting mind-numbingly repetitive. Why can't this be November???? WHY????

[Xixak]

I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees.

The 4 lines you quoted from my post were cherry-picked, taken a little out of context (by excluding other parts of my post that expanded on my explantion of those 4 lines) and based your argument on things you incorrectly inferred from my post (jimmie did a good job of exposing that), rather than what my post actually said.

I'm not mimicking or disrespecting, I've just reached my wits end trying to explain my apparent pro-tanking point of view. Despite numerous attemps by many pro-tankers (or people that just get what the pro-tankers are actually in favor of) to explain their preferences, you still seem to base your arguments on your own perception of what "pro-tanking" actually is.

No I don't.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Umm excuse me? I quoted 4 lines out of your long post and said they were wrong. I did not say you were wrong or that your whole post was wrong.

On the other hand it is funny that you are mimicking me in order to make a point, I didn't realize this was a kindergarten classroom.

I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees.

The 4 lines you quoted from my post were cherry-picked, taken a little out of context (by excluding other parts of my post that expanded on my explantion of those 4 lines) and based your argument on things you incorrectly inferred from my post (jimmie did a good job of exposing that), rather than what my post actually said.

I'm not mimicking or disrespecting, I've just reached my wits end trying to explain my apparent pro-tanking point of view. Despite numerous attemps by many pro-tankers (or people that just get what the pro-tankers are actually in favor of) to explain their preferences, you still seem to base your arguments on your own perception of what "pro-tanking" actually is.

[Xixak]

I'm not a pro-tanker.

kk

[jimmie]

I'll ask you the same question I asked in the Signs of Tanking thread:

Say we get to the trade deadline and only Detroit really has interest in Gay. BUT, Smith at 3 with Monroe at 4 isn't working out too poorly, so they're willing to live with it. As a result, they are not willing to add to their offer of Stuckey+Villanueva for Gay?

Then as a pro-tanker what do you do?

I'm not a pro-tanker.