Printable View
grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-nba-free-agency-3-point-shooter-danny-green-demarre-carroll/
Well actually they say all three point specialists are, which is true, but implicitly they're saying green is smart to trade money for successes and stay at a discount in a good system, rather than going to Detroit , which would drive his numbers down.
I'm just wondering how Splitter's absence can affect Green.
Usually players that are unable to dribble a basketball are imo
I think 11mil is too much for a 3 and d guy who lack dirtiness and sometimes go tottaly slump, lose effectiveness and look so awkward playing basketball...
That bears repeating.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
Quote:
Originally Posted by K...
He is a system player... so is Jim.
Who would you have replaced him with? IMO the Spurs had no choice but to re-sign Green. This is part of the money Tim gave up as well. This was necessary to give the best shot at Tim winning another ring so even if they were paying a premium to the market instead of a discount it would have been the right move.Quote:
Originally Posted by kobyz
"System player" implies that he wouldn't be able to have this sort of effectiveness on several other teams. That's simply not true. He'd still be one of the best wing defenders in the league, and he'd still be an elite spot-up shooter who can shoot 3s at 40+% clip. The Spurs aren't the only team who can create open looks for 3-point shooters :lol
I mean sure, there are some teams where he'd likely notice a drop-off in production. If you stick him on some absolutely terrible team where he's the best player, then yeah, he'd probably struggle. But he'd do well with tons of other teams outside of SA. He'd have success with basically any halfway decent team in the league.
He's a role player (a very good one), not a system player. There's a difference.
No it doesn't. System player means there has to be a certain system in place in order for him to be effective. Which is 100% correct in Greens case.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan86
Yes he would do well in a few other teams that have a certain system in place. Detroit is not one of them.Quote:
He'd still be one of the best wing defenders in the league, and he'd still be an elite spot-up shooter who can shoot 3s at 40+% clip. The Spurs aren't the only team who can create open looks for 3-point shooters :lol
I mean sure, there are some teams where he'd likely notice a drop-off in production. If you stick him on some absolutely terrible team where he's the best player, then yeah, he'd probably. But he'd do well with tons of other teams outside of SA. He'd have success with basically any halfway decent team in the league.
This also doesn't mean we don't need him. We do.
Bingo bango.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
Not sure why this really comes as a surprise. Everybody knows that Green is terrible at creating his own offense, but he is still viewed as a good offensive player, so of course that is coming out of the system.
The important thing is that Green seemed to realize this and, along with his comfort-level and loyalty to the Spurs, took less money to stay in a system where his talents can be maximized.
As long as you're not counting on Green to be one of your primary scorers, he'll do fine. There doesn't need to be a "certain system" for him to do well - he just needs to not be the focus of your offense. Again, he's a role player, not a system player.
Basically every team in the league runs sets or plays to get shooters open on the perimeter. The Spurs aren't the only ones who create open looks for guys from deep.
Maybe this is just semantics. To me, a system player is someone who needs a very specific system to succeed. "Getting open looks for shooters" isn't a specific offense - damn near every team in the league aims to do this. If a player would have great success on 2/3 of the teams in the league (which Green would), he's not a system player IMO.
At least he was smart enough to recognize his limitations. He knows he has a legacy to build and took less money to achieve that legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex
He is a system player, and he excels in the system. Worth every penny he earned.
Well I just remember lots of people slamming those who called green a systems player as agenda idiots. The debate then though was about paying green less than ten mil a year. 11 mil is kind of a compromise between those who called green a systems player, and those who thought he was a high value role player. We all know he could earn more. This article suggests it would be a mistake though to take $$ on a bad team if you can't create a shot.
It's one thing to say you want to play a space and pace type O, another thing to sign the players to run it, but the hardest thing is a actually getting five guys to play that way. It'll be interesting to see how much more change in the league happens in year two post "FIVE" era
We can all agree playing on New York or Detroit would suck. And it would lower your next contract value. It'll be interesting to compare greens final contract (assume he doesn't go ring chasing) with his contemporaries like Carroll.
A damn good system player....
Who can shoot over 40% from 3 consistently?
Lock up the other teams best pg, sg, at times sf...
"System player" is an overused term that doesn't really mean anything. There are very few players in the NBA who don't rely on a structured offense to generate points efficiently.
Danny cant create his own offense, so of course he needs a system in place to create it for him. That makes him a system player, but not neccesarily a Spurs system player. Create any kind of space for Danny and he'll pay dividends.
He is, it doesn't mean that other players on shitty teams can do what he does. Danny Green being a system player doesn't mean Terrence Ross could be Danny Green if he were on the Spurs right now.
I dont give 2 shits if Green is known as a system player. I was happier when I heard the Spurs re-signed him than the Spurs signing Aldridge, tbh. It's a perimeter game, and Danny Green is one of the best on both ends.
Yep. A winning system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Mignon
Aldridge is a steal when you realize that OKC is paying Kanter $17m per. I'm disappointed that LMA didn't take ask for less than the max.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman2886
I don't see how. In a system where Kanter gets that, the max is a bargain.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceperez
All role players are system players if you are judging by their ability to create their own offense, tbh..but ya, as jag said, technically, most successful players in the NBA rely on a structured system..even All-Star players like Tony Parker and Deron Williams can become legit stars in a great system, a good player like Jeff Teague becomes an All-Star in a great system, a shitty player like Rondo looks like a good player in a nice system with great players around him, etc..
Even somebody like Lebron(the best player in the NBA for the past 6 years) played the most efficient basketball of his career in the latter part of his Heat run, because of the system and continuity they had built(obviously not comparing him to a role player, Lebron is the staple of the system, but ya)..
Big men get paid in this league, even average big men. Aldridge is definitely worth that money. OKC overpaid for Kanter, big time. He sucks defensively, and is underwhelming offensively. OKC had to do it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceperez
:cry im not allowed to see the threads upstairsQuote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Mignon
Sucks defensively is an understatement, tbh:lol..he's historically bad..Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman2886
I guess Dion Waiters isn't a system player because he can always create his own shot. Doesn't matter that it rarely goes in.
He isn't a system player, he wouldn't fit in any system ever created, tbh:lol..Quote:
Originally Posted by cjw
Danny is undoubtedly a top-tier defensive wing, but his value is greatest as a pure 3-and-D guy who has others create great looks from the arc for him, which takes a team effort and willing passers. He has that in San Antonio and it makes for a mutually-beneficial relationship.
Danny could have gotten more to go somewhere else, but if going somewhere else exposed his limitations -- which are fairly clear to those who watch him a lot -- and meant that he'd either be out of the NBA or a minimum salary journeyman after this contract is up, he made the right move to stay in a place (and a system) where he could maximize his talents and might keep himself in the league for more years. So, while he took less this time, the odds are that he'll extend his career and have a chance to take one more big dip in a few years, which might well mean that he'll make more money for his career than if he had just taken the plunge this summer.
I think it's a fair characterization. Green actually has plenty of deficiencies (starting with piss poor ballhandling/dribbling skills for his position) that get covered up because he fits perfectly in the Spurs system. A good example of a guy who probably would not look nearly as good on another team.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Agree. He is a flawed player basketballwise. But so was Bruce Bowen tbqh.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmc
Niche players. What I like is that he knows his limitations and plays his strengths to the fullest potential.
They can call Verde a system player but if he keeps playing good Perimeter defense and keeps knocking down 3's then it works for me.
As long as they call him champion its all good.
I read this article days ago. The intent of the article wasn't to call anyone a system player; rather it detailed the importance of three point shooters being in the right system.
Perfectly said; except, I'd add that this is the place where Danny is going to be happiest (I'm assuming). He has established his relationships and he's competing for rings.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by jag
I remember in Duncan's rookie season, they were calling TD a system player and Keith Van Horn was the real baller who could thrive despite his surroundings.
Green is a system player. His decision to stay in San Antonio benefitted him and the Spurs. Wide open shots are on the way for years to come.
Had he gone somewhere else like the Knicks, he'd be getting booed and called a bust & would spend the rest of his contract getting traded from team to team.
I don't recall that whatsoever. I recall Pitino offering his wife and anyone on his roster for Duncan. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by jag
The antithesis is a shitty team with iso ball and one or two superstars coached by a pussy scared of being outed by the team stars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Mignon
I agree Buddy. 1st time for everything I guess. Timmy is THE SYSTEM !!!!!