Everything Bruno Caboclo

[golden]

Casey's m.o. of teaching young guys by benching them for mistakes and requiring them to earn their minutes by doing what he's asking them to do is well established and not at all unique. A lot of coaches do that, virtually all of them when you're talking playoff teams.

You don't hook a vet like Salmons the same way because a.) He's already earned his minutes (that's what being a vet is all about), and b.) You disrespect a 30+ year old vet by treating him like a 19 year old kid. You'd talk to Salmons instead of benching him, but you'd also be aware of his limitations - he is what he is at that stage - whereas you're still hoping to develop the skills and mindset of your young guys.

This stuff isn't that weird and I don't know why theae boards get so riled up about it. I'd have liked to see JV and Ross get a few more minutes last year, but I can appreciate what Casey's doing. It's just a coaching style, which'll suit some players better than giving them a long leash and some less so.

I think it's the 'he is what he is' that gets the fans riled up. At some point, you know Salmons is going to be so bad, why even play him in the first place? And I'm not so sure about the "that's what virtually all coaches on playoff teams do".

The best example is Popovich and Tony Parker. In Parker's rookie year, Pop had the option of playing the 16-year vet, Terry Porter, or the 19-year old, 29th pick of the draft, from France, with no jump-shot. Parker started 72 games for a 59-win team with championship aspirations, and Porter came off the bench 72 times. Is there any question what Casey would have done, given the choice? And that's what makes Popovich so great. He had the balls to go with his gut, recognize potential talent and go right at development, rather than play it safe. And that gamble has paid for itself many times over. In the case of Ross over Salmons, that doesn't even look like a gamble. Salmons shouldn't even have been on the court. At some point, vets also 'un-earn' their minutes, too.

Vince Carter got to start over even a solid 2-way veteran like Doug Christie, just based on pre-season, as yet another example even closer to home of a coach who wasn't afraid to play talented youth over 'vets who earned it'. At some point, it crosses the line to entitlement, which is equally bad.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Ok, I probably over-reacted to semantics, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg, isn't it. Why should the bar be higher for rooks and sophs? It should really be case-by-case. And how do young players get the opportunity to even prove they're worthy, when they are not getting minutes and looking over their shoulder when they do? Players in that situation are tense and not playing loose - over-thinking and forcing your game instead of letting it come to you, just so you can make a visible impact. It's a negative spiral. That was basically what T. Ross said... becoming a starter allowed him to play relaxed, knowing he would have guaranteed minutes and be allowed to play through his mistakes. I'm not saying to make everything rook a starter, but if the goal is development, and he isn't hurting the team, then there should be some level of consistency with respect to role and minutes. And in the case of Ross' development, if Casey's alternative was Salmons (or Anderson, before that), then it should have been a no-brainer. If all of them suck equally, then you give Ross the minutes because at least you can get some long term return-on-investment by developing him. There's no point in 'investing' in players who have either plateaued, or worse in the case of Salmons - is on the downside, when you have equally 'bad' options.

1st bold - my thinking is that if you go into the season with a clearly established starter, 2nd and 3rd string, the lower you are down the depth chart, the more you need to prove yourself in order to move up. If the 3rd string plays well, but no better than the 1st/2nd string, he'll remain buried as the 3rd string. First you need to prove your worth to maintain your current spot, then you have to prove your worthy of overtaking another player - that's where I have a hard time believing that Bruno will earn minutes over the combination of DeRozan/Ross/Williams/JJ/Vasquez/Fields.

2nd bold - I already addressed this in a previous post; I agree with you on the surface and argued the same point in years past. However, I think this year the depth ahead of Bruno isn't made up of worthless vets, as it has been in the past. Fields is probably the only wing that will be gone after this season, but that still leaves Bruno behind DeRozan and Ross (young, entrenched long-term starters), Williams (young and itching to prove his worth to be re-signed long-term) and JJ (relatively young, signed to value deal, looking to prove his worth in fight of his own for minutes). It's not longer a situation of blue-chip prospect (ie: Valanciunas & Ross) VS worthless veteran who isn't in future plans.

[MACK11]

I've been reading and my 2 cents are
Bruno even if he out plays JJ or any other vet he would still most likely be buried on the bench just because of his age. We seen 1st hand how playing a rookie minutes speeds up development or helps them play better because they constantly don't have to look behind them and they know they can make mistakes and play through them.

This is exactly what we did with DeMar and look how he turned out. But the notion that just because Salmons or any other vet should get minutes because they are a vet is stupid this is what happened last year and with Allan Anderson as well. All I'm saying is if it's clear that this vet is playing and he's playing like shit but he still gets minutes just because hes a vet is ridiculous. The players that play well regardless of age or experience should be in the game.

And I see some posters saying Bruno, Ross, and Jonas all have to prove that they should get minutes and I agree but when the guy ahead of them on the depth chart is playing terrible and he still gets his minutes while the younger players don't play how is that setting a good example? We all know Casey loves his vets regardless is they play good or bad. So why do the young guys have to prove they should play but the vets get a free pass?

Also why even over play vets when you know they're not the long term solution? It's not like we're contenders so we need our younger guys to develop and lead this team like DeMar

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I've been reading and my 2 cents are
Bruno even if he out plays JJ or any other vet he would still most likely be buried on the bench just because of his age. We seen 1st hand how playing a rookie minutes speeds up development or helps them play better because they constantly don't have to look behind them and they know they can make mistakes and play through them.

This is exactly what we did with DeMar and look how he turned out. But the notion that just because Salmons or any other vet should get minutes because they are a vet is stupid this is what happened last year and with Allan Anderson as well. All I'm saying is if it's clear that this vet is playing and he's playing like shit but he still gets minutes just because hes a vet is ridiculous. The players that play well regardless of age or experience should be in the game.

And I see some posters saying Bruno, Ross, and Jonas all have to prove that they should get minutes and I agree but when the guy ahead of them on the depth chart is playing terrible and he still gets his minutes while the younger players don't play how is that setting a good example? We all know Casey loves his vets regardless is they play good or bad. So why do the young guys have to prove they should play but the vets get a free pass?

Also why even over play vets when you know they're not the long term solution? It's not like we're contenders so we need our younger guys to develop and lead this team like DeMar

I haven't seen anybody suggesting the bold should (or will) be the case. If any of the players currently ahead of Bruno on the depth chart play poorly - whether it's a key young player like Ross or a veteran like Williams/JJ/Fields - then they won't have earned their playing time and shouldn't get playing time by default. Although, I suppose an argument could be made that a struggling Ross should still take priority, given the investment in him - but that's another discussion entirely.

The other issue is the subjective nature of 'struggling'. Also, how much must one of these players struggle, to get to the point that playing a super-green Bruno in critical moments of a game is putting the Raptors in a better position to win the game? I honestly don't know, because it's definitely not an easy question. Ross or Williams having an off shooting night, or JJ having a 'I think I'm the 2nd coming of MJ' night, are not nearly the same as giving heavy minutes to the likes of utterly useless players like Pietrus, Kleiza, Butler, etc...

[grindhouse]

expecct to see what they did to T-mac the first few years he was here garbage time player

[mcHAPPY]

I think it's the 'he is what he is' that gets the fans riled up. At some point, you know Salmons is going to be so bad, why even play him in the first place? And I'm not so sure about the "that's what virtually all coaches on playoff teams do".

The best example is Popovich and Tony Parker. In Parker's rookie year, Pop had the option of playing the 16-year vet, Terry Porter, or the 19-year old, 29th pick of the draft, from France, with no jump-shot. Parker started 72 games for a 59-win team with championship aspirations, and Porter came off the bench 72 times. Is there any question what Casey would have done, given the choice? And that's what makes Popovich so great. He had the balls to go with his gut, recognize potential talent and go right at development, rather than play it safe. And that gamble has paid for itself many times over. In the case of Ross over Salmons, that doesn't even look like a gamble. Salmons shouldn't even have been on the court. At some point, vets also 'un-earn' their minutes, too.

Vince Carter got to start over even a solid 2-way veteran like Doug Christie, just based on pre-season, as yet another example even closer to home of a coach who wasn't afraid to play talented youth over 'vets who earned it'. At some point, it crosses the line to entitlement, which is equally bad.

Bold is a great point. Everything you read about Bruno is that his work ethic and dedication to improving is off the charts - similar to DD.

Another great example of Pop developing players immediately and having them contribute is Kawhi Leonard. He was 20 in his rookie year and played PF in college. Not only did he adapt to the NBA game, he adapted to playing SF and adding a 3pt shot to his game. His rookie year was lockout shortened 66 game season. Spurs won 50 games and went to Conference Finals with Leonard playing 64, starting 39, for 24 minutes per game. In the playoffs he started 14 of 14 and 29mpg.


Of course everyone is going to point out: yeah but we don't have Pop nor TP nor TD nor Manu. Exactly. The Raptors are still developing. They Should be pretty damn good this year but they aren't a contender, I don't think. I'm all about looking 2-3 seasons down the road and it si exactly what I felt about JV. When games start to matter, like they do now, and REALLY matter, like they hopefully will in next 1-2 years, you don't want your talented young players experiencing it for the first time. Indiana has shown how quickly a window can close.

Develop the talent.


Now don't forget I very much realize Bruno is raw but he is talented. 50+ games and on average 10mins per game is not excessive or unreasonable, I don't think. Again, we're talking Novak minutes.

[mcHAPPY]

I've been reading and my 2 cents are
Bruno even if he out plays JJ or any other vet he would still most likely be buried on the bench just because of his age. We seen 1st hand how playing a rookie minutes speeds up development or helps them play better because they constantly don't have to look behind them and they know they can make mistakes and play through them.

This is exactly what we did with DeMar and look how he turned out. But the notion that just because Salmons or any other vet should get minutes because they are a vet is stupid this is what happened last year and with Allan Anderson as well. All I'm saying is if it's clear that this vet is playing and he's playing like shit but he still gets minutes just because hes a vet is ridiculous. The players that play well regardless of age or experience should be in the game.

And I see some posters saying Bruno, Ross, and Jonas all have to prove that they should get minutes and I agree but when the guy ahead of them on the depth chart is playing terrible and he still gets his minutes while the younger players don't play how is that setting a good example? We all know Casey loves his vets regardless is they play good or bad. So why do the young guys have to prove they should play but the vets get a free pass?

Also why even over play vets when you know they're not the long term solution? It's not like we're contenders so we need our younger guys to develop and lead this team like DeMar

Exactly.

But they are very close to being contenders, I think.

Wouldn't it be better to have Bruno ready to roll at NBA speed?

[Mr.Z]

For the sake of speeding things along because I do believe Bruno is going to be a two-way monster when he hits his prime I agree that he should get some burn this season and I'm not even talking garbage minutes. If Casey plays him at all this season on a semi-regular basis I hope he puts him out there with the best group possible. I want to see him next to Lowry and Demar, so he can learn and play with/against the best. It could only be for 2/3 minutes at a time but it could help him/us a lot in the long run.

[5upercharged]

Bruno will start. DeMar rests

— Ryan Wolstat (@WolstatSun) October 15, 2014

BRUNOOOOO!!!!!!!

[mcHAPPY]

Bruno will start. DeMar rests

— Ryan Wolstat (@WolstatSun) October 15, 2014

BRUNOOOOO!!!!!!!

Sweeet!!!

Don't care how he does.

All about experience.

[Chr1s1anL]

The thing that makes this tough on fans is that we don't know what happens in practise. I could easily see the likes of DD, JJ, Fields and even J Ham just bodying Bruno all practise long. I can also see Bruno blocking and changing a lot of their shots as well. The thing is we don't which one is more consistent. Most likely first option is more consistent.

[Rapzilla]

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/A3B...IJpLhQaFfSSIpp

[blackjitsu]

This is a pretty cool conversation you guys are having. I would just point out that you guys are comparing Casey to Pop, but Pop has also sent players to the DLeague to develop. For example, the PG from Toronto on his roster. The advantage he has is that their DLeague team is owned by the Spurs. It is a significant advantage. They can run similar sets, give preferential playing time to draft picks, etc.

Also, Parker was already starting in France on a regular basis, Bruno had only recently made his team's senior side when he was drafted. And Kahwi may have been a power forward in college, but he was coached by one of the best all-time coaches in Coach Fischer. You can't compare what Bruno was getting to what Leanord was getting as far as a fundamental base.

A player at his level (Using Summer League for this assessment), at his age, in any league around the world would be on a bench. The Raps share their DLeague team with almost half the league! He won't get play time there. In Europe, where they value experience and maturity -- he'd get great coaching in the right leagues but he would be a bench player anywhere higher than the 3rd division. In Australia, (where they sent Daniels) he would most likely come off the bench, etc. So why not have him ride a bench in the NBA? He already looks improved from Summer League.

If the Raptors were not aiming to win their division I would be solidly behind giving him minutes. The East has strengthened but they probably could get a 6-8 seed, and give him minutes. But they're not just developing Bruno. Ross and Val deserve to develop in an environment where every game counts.

[Rapzilla]

Bruno at the end...

[chico]

The thing that makes this tough on fans is that we don't know what happens in practise. I could easily see the likes of DD, JJ, Fields and even J Ham just bodying Bruno all practise long. I can also see Bruno blocking and changing a lot of their shots as well. The thing is we don't which one is more consistent. Most likely first option is more consistent.

That's part of what us fans know nothing about. Another part would be the psyche of the player, which coaches and management have daily exposure to. Every player is different. Some do very well thrown into the fire right away. Some don't. Some do very well when brought along slowly. Ibaka as an example, didn't start a game his 1st year and averaged 18 minutes. Only started half the games his 2nd year. Was he messed up by bringing along slowly? I see Pop being touted as starting Parker right away, and inserting Leonard quickly. Pop doesn't take same approach to every player.

Splitter- 3rd year before significant starts
Leonard- didn't start 1st 10 games, started 13, then went through another stretch of coming off bench, then starter again, with very inconsistent minutes, mostly in the teens to end season. Was he screwed with because he wasn't played through mistakes, and hurt his development? The inconsistent minuted messed him up?

For every player that can be cited as having excelled when thrown into the fire consistently, there's another that excelled when brought along slowly. Another factor when balancing development of a young player is how thrusting him into many minutes before he's ready affects other players under development, particularly at the team defensive end. There can be other factors we have no clue of. As an example, JV spending time with a running coach this summer, intended to get him moving lighter and less taxing on his endurance: any chance that was causing him to be gassed and causing some quick hooks that so many complain about? smh at fans who think they know better than the pros how to bring along an NBA player.