Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Colangelo interview with Bob McCown on FAN590

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    big_chris wrote: View Post
    Bargnani does a lot of great things, but going and getting the ball at an above average level is not one of them. Dallas surrounded Dirk with guy's who did that better then anything else, and he won a championship ( That wasn't the only reason of course ). His SF and C couldn't create a shot, and only rebounded and defended at an elite level. Their job was to get the ball from the other team for their scorers.

    The team that gets the most rebounds doesn't win. If your 2nd unit kills the opposing second unit on the glass, but can't score with those extra possessions, those rebounds didn't mean anything towards the final score. If we can get closer to 50% of the rebounds while our scoring talent is on the floor, then we can actually go somewhere with it.

    You're missing the point. Rebounding is a team effort. If one guy doesn't box out, it screws the whole team. Bargnani doesn't need to get the ball to help on the glass, he just needs to make sure the guy he is guarding doesn't get the ball either.


    There is a whole thread with these types of arguments about Bargnani. The argument is old and stale and is not supported by the team's record with him in the lineup nor the rebounding match up. Oh yeah, and if the team that gets the most rebounds doesn't win, why exactly are you shitting on Bargnani, especially when we the original topic was if he was a number 1 scoring option or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • big_chris
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Regardless of who was coming off the bench, the team has won the rebounding match ups 2/3's of the time with Bargnani in the lineup. The team is also 6-7 with him and 2-12 without him.

    I appreciate your argument but I disagree.
    Bargnani does a lot of great things, but going and getting the ball at an above average level is not one of them. Dallas surrounded Dirk with guy's who did that better then anything else, and he won a championship ( That wasn't the only reason of course ). His SF and C couldn't create a shot, and only rebounded and defended at an elite level. Their job was to get the ball from the other team for their scorers.

    The team that gets the most rebounds doesn't win. If your 2nd unit kills the opposing second unit on the glass, but can't score with those extra possessions, those rebounds didn't mean anything towards the final score. If we can get closer to 50% of the rebounds while our scoring talent is on the floor, then we can actually go somewhere with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • LBF
    replied
    meh, who cares he'll be on again within a month preaching the same things in different words.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    BTW, I was listening to the Colangelo interview live when at one point, Colangelo's phone cut off. That's when I stepped out of the car. Was anything of substance said after that? I'm assuming they got him back on the line.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    As long as Bargnani is producing efficient offensive numbers, and he continues to improve defensively under Casey, I agree with Matt. He can be our #1 scoring option (a la Dirk).

    [I can't believe it's taken a mere 13 games for Bargnani to sway me....]

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    big_chris wrote: View Post
    On / off numbers show the team grabs 46.4% of available rebounds while Bargnani is on the floor. That's -4.5 rebounds vs the opponent per 35 minutes in an average, 84 rebound game. We had Amir, Davis and JJohnson coming off the bench there to bring up the team numbers in a line-up that struggled to score.

    It would be like having a perimeter guy who couldn't shoot. If they did enough other stuff well, they can be a great player... but you have to put a shooter on each side of them if you don't want to be fighting uphill battles all the time.
    Regardless of who was coming off the bench, the team has won the rebounding match ups 2/3's of the time with Bargnani in the lineup. The team is also 6-7 with him and 2-12 without him.

    I appreciate your argument but I disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • big_chris
    replied
    NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    yo chris i love your pic. u should put miller and barnes in it too as possible future raptors
    How about MKG and Kabongo? :-) It's getting hard to cram in more guy's.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoPropsneeded
    replied
    Maleko wrote: View Post
    Exactly.
    ya bro, imagine the offesive nuclear bomb those 3 will bring. Barnes/Miller, DeRozan and Bargs that is too much. Also packaged with Dwane casey's ultimate defense this team would be unstoppable

    Leave a comment:


  • Maleko
    replied
    NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    Barnes or Miller comes to mind
    Exactly.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoPropsneeded
    replied
    yo chris i love your pic. u should put miller and barnes in it too as possible future raptors

    Leave a comment:


  • big_chris
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I disagree.

    In the 13 games Bargnani has played this year the Raptors are 8-4-1 when it comes to team rebounding.

    In the 16 games without Bargnani the Raptors are 5-11 in team rebounding.

    So while Bargnani might not grab the rebound, the Raptors have been better rebounding as a team with him in the lineup than without.
    On / off numbers show the team grabs 46.4% of available rebounds while Bargnani is on the floor. That's -4.5 rebounds vs the opponent per 35 minutes in an average, 84 rebound game. We had Amir, Davis and JJohnson coming off the bench there to bring up the team numbers in a line-up that struggled to score.

    It would be like having a perimeter guy who couldn't shoot. If they did enough other stuff well, they can be a great player... but you have to put a shooter on each side of them if you don't want to be fighting uphill battles all the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    big_chris wrote: View Post
    For all his improvement, Bargnani is still a liability on the boards. He's attacking on offense at a high level and has been a disruptive force on defense... but his lack of production on the glass can't just be ignored because he does that other stuff well. It needs to be compensated for.
    I disagree.

    In the 13 games Bargnani has played this year the Raptors are 8-4-1 when it comes to team rebounding.

    In the 16 games without Bargnani the Raptors are 5-11 in team rebounding.

    So while Bargnani might not grab the rebound, the Raptors have been better rebounding as a team with him in the lineup than without.

    Leave a comment:


  • big_chris
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I'm not sure that is the case anymore regarding Bargnani. Obviously it is still a small sample size but the Raptors have been a much better team this year offensively AND defensively with him in the lineup. He was playing really good on the ball defense, guarding pick and rolls, and while he wasn't getting loads of rebounds, his man wasn't either i.e. he was boxing.
    For all his improvement, Bargnani is still a liability on the boards. He's attacking on offense at a high level and has been a disruptive force on defense... but his lack of production on the glass can't just be ignored because he does that other stuff well. It needs to be compensated for.

    Leave a comment:


  • CalgaryRapsFan
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I don't think there is one set formula for winning. Every team (and there have not been too many) that has won it all in the last 25 years have been different. There are many ways to go about building a winning team and a cookie-cutter approach is not going to work. If it did, everyone would do it.

    As for Bargnani, you are right, that is another thread that has been done before - extensively. However, if the 13 games becomes the norm (and I fully agree that is a big 'if') he is, in my opinion, a #1 scoring option.
    There is one requirement that I can think of, which every championship team going back to the Lakers/Pistons of the late 80's have had, and that is one big defensive anchor. It is that reason why I think "haters" of Bargnani have been so down on him in the past, for not fulfilling the traditional C role. That is precisely the reason I am so happy with his transition to PF and why the thought of pairing him with Valanciunas is such a hopeful one! I think Valanciunas has the game that could eventually become a true defensive anchor in the middle.

    Bulls - Cartright, then Longley
    Rockets - Hakeem
    Spurs - Robinson, Duncan
    Lakers - O'Neal, Bynum/Gasol
    Heat - O'Neal, Mourning
    Pistons - Wallace
    Mavs - Chandler

    In a perfect world, Valanciunas would become the shot blocking/altering defensive anchor of the Raptors for the next 10-15 years
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Mon Feb 13th, 2012, 05:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    sleepz wrote: View Post
    As much as I have liked Bargnani's improved play of late, I also prefer my #1 scoring option to be a guard or a swing, unless his name is Dirk.

    I think that recent history has shown us that big men are essential for defence and rebounding and can indeed be major contributors offensively but the smalls do the crunch time scoring and creating making life easier for their teammates.

    Unless of course you feel Andrea can score at a Dirk like level and be that guy late in games, but thats an entirely different thread and not one I even want to get into. lol
    I don't think there is one set formula for winning. Every team (and there have not been too many) that has won it all in the last 25 years have been different. There are many ways to go about building a winning team and a cookie-cutter approach is not going to work. If it did, everyone would do it.

    As for Bargnani, you are right, that is another thread that has been done before - extensively. However, if the 13 games becomes the norm (and I fully agree that is a big 'if') he is, in my opinion, a #1 scoring option.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X