Nilanka wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Valanciunas
Collapse
X
-
Nilanka wrote: View PostYou're right, he did have a strong opening night.
I'm not knocking Jonas. He's a solid player, who is still relatively young. He'll be a great player one day, but I'm convinced it won't be in Toronto. His skills aren't best utilized within a DeRozan/Lowry playbook.
Comment
-
-
LJ2 wrote: View PostHe's a bit more athletic, but better? Don't think so personally. If JV didn't have any offensive game he basically would be Turner.
Comment
-
LJ2 wrote: View PostHe's a bit more athletic, but better? Don't think so personally. If JV didn't have any offensive game he basically would be Turner.
But I mentioned Turner only as an example that ridding ourselves of Jonas, doesn't necessarily mean we take a step back. Jonas has a lot of value around the league, is young, and on a friendly contract. If traded, the assumption is a solid player (who happens to fit better in Casey's system) is obtained.
Comment
-
Nilanka wrote: View PostI'd say Turner's a lot more athletic than Jonas, who needs the entire length of the court before reaching top speed, lol.
But I mentioned Turner only as an example that ridding ourselves of Jonas, doesn't necessarily mean we take a step back. Jonas has a lot of value around the league, is young, and on a friendly contract. If traded, the assumption is a solid player (who happens to fit better in Casey's system) is obtained.
Comment
-
LJ2 wrote: View PostI agree that Turner is more athletic and would fit what our system is asking of our C. However you take away JV's game on offence and you have a similar version of Turner. Why not just keep JV and keep continuing to mould him into what we want in Turner. Is the up tick in athleticism with Turner really worth losing a reliable post threat that is a great post defender as well? We're not talking prime Tyson Chandler when we speak of Turner are we?Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
Comment
-
LJ2 wrote: View PostI agree that Turner is more athletic and would fit what our system is asking of our C. However you take away JV's game on offence and you have a similar version of Turner. Why not just keep JV and keep continuing to mould him into what we want in Turner. Is the up tick in athleticism with Turner really worth losing a reliable post threat that is a great post defender as well? We're not talking prime Tyson Chandler when we speak of Turner are we?
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View PostBy what measure? He faces among the most post ups of anyone in the league, and keeps opponents below 0.7 PPP.Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
Comment
-
jimmie wrote: View PostEye test. He gets worked in the post. He's not a great defender by any stretch. If we want to value JV for his offense, we have to admit his flaws on defense.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View PostBy what measure? He faces among the most post ups of anyone in the league, and keeps opponents below 0.7 PPP.
Comment
-
KeonClark wrote: View PostTalent trumps all. Finding a lesser player to fit the "derozan/lowry playbook" is too shortsighted. There's a very small handful of players that you build your whole roster around accommodating them, at we don't have any of those players.
Comment
-
A.I wrote: View PostI disagree. A lesser player who is utilized to his strengths is a better fit than a talented player who isn't used effectively, but I wouldn't trade JV unless he is part of a packaged deal for a star player like Cousins or Millsap.9 time first team all-RR, First Ballot Hall of Forum
Comment
Comment