3inthekeon wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
#FireCasey
Collapse
X
-
"Stop eating your sushi."
"I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
"I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
- Jack Armstrong
-
Some posters have complained big time on us passing on KJ McD at 20.
Spurs passed on him at 30.
Spurs drafted Kyle Anderson, a kid who had been often compared to Boris Diaw, who just happens to play for the Spurs.
They certainly seem to have drafted to fit the system.
Edit; Fitting the system is more feasible the lower the pick. Early on, talent/potential matter more. Would the Raps pass on JV in a do-over despite him not fitting the system? Don't think so.Last edited by 3inthekeon; Wed Jan 28, 2015, 02:49 PM.If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.
Comment
-
Mediumcore wrote: View PostThe bolded contradicts what a system should be though. You don't change a system based on the player, you change the players to fit the system. I have no idea what kind of player that Khawai Leonard or Jimmy Butler were in college, but they didn't enter the team and coach think he needs to change the system to fit their strenghts.
Regarding the Rudy trade...Rudy was traded because he didn't fit the system Casey was trying to employ, and they got players that did fit in. I would think that trade hilighted my point.
a) The NBA environment is fluid in that one does not have infinite time to mold a player into an iron-clad system which isnt flexible
b) Every player has strengths and weaknesses....physical/athletic and BB iq (I exclude items like shooting, fts, general fitness etc)
c) the coach cannot wish away his talent for another because the current cast cannot adapt. In most cases he has to.
d) other teams/coaches are improving and adapting (even in-game) all the time. Being system or scheme static is just asking for trouble.
Re Leonard & Butler...these were drafted players. Kawhi was actually traded for draft day so presumably the Spurs knew exactly who they were getting skill set and psychologically wise....they hit quite often. Butler was probably more of a fortunate pick at #30 but Chicago is no slouch of an org either drafting wise. Comparably, the Raptors were a mess when Casey came here and no place to go but up...which he certainly helped in doing but the team is at another level now and the personnel has changed since. Very few coaches can go thru a career without adapting their coaching methods or systems to fit their personnel. Carlisle in Dallas, noted as a very good defense first coach seems to not be that this year...but he still has a team which will be in the mix at playoff time. He even sat down Rondo for a 4th qtr recently. Would Casey have done that? That was probably an unfair shot but serves as an example.
Comment
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostI think it was more about rotations that left him rushing out to cover the 3pt line, which I agree is utter nonsense. Any system that relies on a 7-footer covering the 3pt line is asking for trouble, while certainly not utilizing personnel in a manner that plays to their strengths.If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostSome posters have complained big time on us passing on KJ McD at 20.
Spurs passed on him at 30.
Spurs drafted Kyle Anderson, a kid who had been often compared to Boris Diaw, who just happens to play for the Spurs.
They certainly seem to have drafted to fit the system.
Edit; Fitting the system is more feasible the lower the pick. Early on, talent/potential matter more. Would the Raps pass on JV in a do-over despite him not fitting the system? Don't think so.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostThat's not hedging. The word hedge was used. Are you saying he doesn't know what hedge means? I think he does know, but was just repeating what so many other people had claimed as well.
Comment
-
Mindlessness wrote: View PostThis is semantics. Yeah, he misused it, I don't think the idea is lost there. I mean, to me it was quite obvious he meant Jonas had to move and help a lot, which he shouldn't be doing.
And people were agreeing - no one bothered to correct what he said, because they've been hearing the same thing as well.If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostI don't think he misused it, and I don't blame him for saying Jonas is asked to hedge, because a lot of other people have said the same thing.
And people were agreeing - no one bothered to correct what he said, because they've been hearing the same thing as well.
Comment
-
Mindlessness wrote: View PostSure, the Spurs do that, but that doesn't mean other title contenders do; Dallas doesn't, Carlisle designs the system around the team. LAC doesn't, Rivers came and designed around Paul and Griffin. Portland certainly doesn't, Stotts started coaching them after they already had their entire starting lineup. Obviously Kerr and the Warriors don't, Kerr built his system around the talent; and the list goes on and on and on.If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostWell Carlisle's system that he designed around the team has a Defensive Rating of 106.9, ours is 106.9.
EDIT: link http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostWell Carlisle's system that he designed around the team has a Defensive Rating of 106.9, ours is 106.9.
Comment
-
raptors999 wrote: View PostAs long as Dallas is within 2-3 in the fourth, they have an unstoppable ISO scorer same as OKC. A seven footer with range is a better than 50% chance to win or tie. Toronto doesn't have that.If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.
Comment
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostI think the bold is flawed, as San Antonio is the perfect example of a team targeting players (draft, free agency, etc...) that they think will fit their system, as much as for the player's individual skillset. Leonard is the perfect example of this. Had he been drafted earlier by a weaker team that would have tried to make him a bigger part of their overall scheme (on both sides of the ball), there's no way he would be the NBA darling that he is today. He had the skillset to fit SA's model and has been worked into it seamlessly, as SA has done over the years.
The key is that the GM (roster) and coach (system) need to be on the same page, about both the approach to game-planning and roster makeup/development. There are several players that don't seem to fit DC's style, yet I'd be surprised if MU were to dump them. Ironically, Ross was widely viewed as DC's pick, yet he gets played out of position and in a role that is rarely designed to fit his skillset.
At the end of the day, establishing a system for a team is fine. Personally, I just don't like DC's system, especially when the personnel don't seem suited to play within it.
Comment
-
3inthekeon wrote: View PostWhat does your answer have to do with a defensive system?
Comment
Comment