grindhouse wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Raptors Offseason 2022
Collapse
X
-
Primer wrote: View Post
To have the best defense in the entire NBA. Gobert is that good and our defense would be nasty.
He also averaged 16 ppg with the highest TS% in the league so he's clearly still very useful on the offensive end. He will put back every offensive board and can't be stopped within 5 feet of the basket. Our offense gave Precious a ton of bunnies that he missed. Gobert puts those down every time.
playoffs when teams go small against Gobert and play 5-out. He looks totally helpless at that point. What do we do when the Celtics sub in Grant Williams for Robert Williams and start bombing away from 3?
Comment
-
golden wrote: View Post
Jazz were 11th, 4th and 13th in DRTG the last 3 regular seasons. And then there’s the
playoffs when teams go small against Gobert and play 5-out. He looks totally helpless at that point. What do we do when the Celtics sub in Grant Williams for Robert Williams and start bombing away from 3?
Teams figured their defense out along time ago. Play small with a shooter at the 5, drive because their perimeter defenders won't defend and kick because Gobert will be forced to help.
If you put Gobert on a team who have good defenders and actually put in effort, he will shine and the team becomes hell of a lot better on that end. Obviously Raptors will have to tone down the aggressive defense with Gobert to avoid having him out on the perimeter.
Gobert would be a fantastic get, but the issue is his salary and trading for it.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
A.I wrote: View Post
He looks helpless in Utah because his teammates are terrible defenders.
Teams figured their defense out along time ago. Play small with a shooter at the 5, drive because their perimeter defenders won't defend and kick because Gobert will be forced to help.
If you put Gobert on a team who have good defenders and actually put in effort, he will shine and the team becomes hell of a lot better on that end. Obviously Raptors will have to tone down the aggressive defense with Gobert to avoid having him out on the perimeter.
Gobert would be a fantastic get, but the issue is his salary and trading for it.
Also, Utah is always last in forcing turnovers, which is Nurse's bread & butter. It would require building an entire defense around Gobert's strengths..... and weaknesses (which again, are exploitable in the playoffs). We'd be passive with drop coverage and be funneling guys to Gobert. That's a 180 degree shift from Nurse's philosophy.... aggression.
People are simply ignoring the $40M/year cap hit and what that does to cripple other roster building moves. People moaned about our weak bench last year and Nurse has no patience for developing bench guys. Just wait to see what our bench looks like when we have $40M/year in cap tied up in Gobert, who might be played off the floor in key moments. I have no problem with Rudy, per se. But I have a big problem with the salary and acquisition cost (i.e. OG + another key player).Last edited by golden; Tue Jun 14, 2022, 08:22 AM.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View Post
Yeah, but if a team has great defenders like us, then you don't need a non-switchable, drop coverage type C like Gobert at $40M/year, except in a few instances. You just need a more affordable Clint Capela, Jarrett Allen, Robert Williams or even a Javale McGee. Heck even a Precious on a rookie contract for 90% of the time. And you don't need (or want) those non-switchable Cs for every game and in crunch time and certain playoff matchups.
Also, Utah is always last in forcing turnovers, which is Nurse's bread & butter. It would require building an entire defense around Gobert's strengths..... and weaknesses (which again, are exploitable in the playoffs). We'd be passive with drop coverage and be funneling guys to Gobert. That's a 180 degree shift from Nurse's philosophy.... aggression.
People are simply ignoring the $40M/year cap hit and what that does to cripple other roster building moves. People moaned about our weak bench last year and Nurse has no patience for developing bench guys. Just wait to see what our bench looks like when we have $40M/year in cap tied up in Gobert, who might be played off the floor in key moments. I have no problem with Rudy, per se. But I have a big problem with the salary and acquisition cost (i.e. OG + another key player).
Comment
-
golden wrote: View Post
Tbh, I’m not sure I even want a $30m + star C either, unless it’s Embiid or Jokic. Feels like we could just roll with Precious for 80-90% of games and then get a cheap backup center like Javale McGee for the other 10-20% of the games when he gets into early foul trouble.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View Post
Yeah, but if a team has great defenders like us, then you don't need a non-switchable, drop coverage type C like Gobert at $40M/year, except in a few instances. You just need a more affordable Clint Capela, Jarrett Allen, Robert Williams or even a Javale McGee. Heck even a Precious on a rookie contract for 90% of the time. And you don't need (or want) those non-switchable Cs for every game and in crunch time and certain playoff matchups.
Also, Utah is always last in forcing turnovers, which is Nurse's bread & butter. It would require building an entire defense around Gobert's strengths..... and weaknesses (which again, are exploitable in the playoffs). We'd be passive with drop coverage and be funneling guys to Gobert. That's a 180 degree shift from Nurse's philosophy.... aggression.
People are simply ignoring the $40M/year cap hit and what that does to cripple other roster building moves. People moaned about our weak bench last year and Nurse has no patience for developing bench guys. Just wait to see what our bench looks like when we have $40M/year in cap tied up in Gobert, who might be played off the floor in key moments. I have no problem with Rudy, per se. But I have a big problem with the salary and acquisition cost (i.e. OG + another key player).
But there is absolutely a risk that it is too big a change to their philosophy, or that they aren't good enough right away to justify the cost of the roster that would quickly follow. Hence the hesitation to make an offer of multiple core pieces, you really have to keep as much current talent as possible to justify the risks involved in a move like that.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View Post
Yeah, but if a team has great defenders like us, then you don't need a non-switchable, drop coverage type C like Gobert at $40M/year, except in a few instances. You just need a more affordable Clint Capela, Jarrett Allen, Robert Williams or even a Javale McGee. Heck even a Precious on a rookie contract for 90% of the time. And you don't need (or want) those non-switchable Cs for every game and in crunch time and certain playoff matchups.
Also, Utah is always last in forcing turnovers, which is Nurse's bread & butter. It would require building an entire defense around Gobert's strengths..... and weaknesses (which again, are exploitable in the playoffs). We'd be passive with drop coverage and be funneling guys to Gobert. That's a 180 degree shift from Nurse's philosophy.... aggression.
People are simply ignoring the $40M/year cap hit and what that does to cripple other roster building moves. People moaned about our weak bench last year and Nurse has no patience for developing bench guys. Just wait to see what our bench looks like when we have $40M/year in cap tied up in Gobert, who might be played off the floor in key moments. I have no problem with Rudy, per se. But I have a big problem with the salary and acquisition cost (i.e. OG + another key player).
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
Yeah, this is why my position is that they would try their darnedest to make the Gobert offer a Trent deal, with as many ancillaries (Flynn, salary relief, some picks) as needed. I absolutely see a world where they could actually ratchet up their aggression (playing 4 huge perimeter defenders extremely aggressively with Gobert protecting the rim could have astonishing results), heck they also love to throw out zones and he'd be incredibly helpful in those. Could also add a PnR element to the offence that would help Fred stay afloat when he's got the ball, and could really unlock some dangerous stuff with Pascal or Scottie running things.
But there is absolutely a risk that it is too big a change to their philosophy, or that they aren't good enough right away to justify the cost of the roster that would quickly follow. Hence the hesitation to make an offer of multiple core pieces, you really have to keep as much current talent as possible to justify the risks involved in a move like that.
Comment
-
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=2ap5a86u
This is the problem with getting gobert and only giving up Trent as your biggest salary
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
Yeah, the C upgrade range I'd expect them to be more interested in is that 15-20M C, solidly above MLE level but not max salary range. Find a Poeltl, JV type C (depending on your preference of type of contribution), keep Precious on the roster, and have the flexibility to play multiple styles. They already have Birch to soak up minutes behind Precious and they like to try small stuff sometimes. If they don't go for a full time upgrade it would actually be nice to add another PF/C prospect to play backup minutes if they prove ready (leaving Birch as a safety net) or get some G-League reps/play 3rd string for a while and have some big depth in the pipeline. I think that's more urgent than having guard depth in the pipeline considering how they seem to want to use their forwards as guards.
If you get a guy like JV or Jakob, then there's going to be some role definition friction with Precious as to who is the starting C. Just get a veteran backup like Dedmon or Javale McGee and let Precious focus 100% on what he has to do to fit in as a starter. The future is Precious.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
Yeah, this is why my position is that they would try their darnedest to make the Gobert offer a Trent deal, with as many ancillaries (Flynn, salary relief, some picks) as needed. I absolutely see a world where they could actually ratchet up their aggression (playing 4 huge perimeter defenders extremely aggressively with Gobert protecting the rim could have astonishing results), heck they also love to throw out zones and he'd be incredibly helpful in those. Could also add a PnR element to the offence that would help Fred stay afloat when he's got the ball, and could really unlock some dangerous stuff with Pascal or Scottie running things.
But there is absolutely a risk that it is too big a change to their philosophy, or that they aren't good enough right away to justify the cost of the roster that would quickly follow. Hence the hesitation to make an offer of multiple core pieces, you really have to keep as much current talent as possible to justify the risks involved in a move like that.
Comment
-
A.I wrote: View Post
As long as Gobert isn't forced to defend the perimeter and the paint at the same time like he has to with the Jazz, he'll be fine.
Comment
-
TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Posthttp://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=2ap5a86u
This is the problem with getting gobert and only giving up Trent as your biggest salary
Comment
Comment