Reply With Quote
and always injured
yeah right
and always injured
He can't. We get destroyed on defense when he is at the 4
"Keldon at the 4" is the second biggest problem with this team
Only willing to do Hayward if we sending out McDermott and Poeltl AND we draft a big or sign a big like Ayton or Bamba to replace him.
Haywood will be on the bench half the season anyway
Great argument, man. You can keep believing he's not a PF despite him playing there for years. That's the logical stance.yeah right
What's concerning is you not understanding that when Gordon was playing as a SF in Utah, your words not mine, he was good enough to make an all star team, and when he played pf "almost exclusively in Boston", your words not mine, they eventually moved on from him cause you know, they have a way better power forward on the team in Jaylen Brown.
It's also concerning that you don't seem to understand the only reason this thread exist is because ANOTHER team has decided they would rather have someone else play the 4, Miles Bridges, than have Gordon play it.
So how many times does Gordon Hayward have to go to a team to play power forward, only for the team to move on from him cause they have a better power forward, before you realize he isn't actually a power forward? Obviously the answer is more than 2.
I'd rather have Collins play power forward than Hayward. Hayward at the 4 would be every bit as disastrous as Keldon and McBuckets.
Do you even know what a power forward is, or even is supposed to do, on a basketball court, on offense and defense? It doesn't look like it if you think Gordon ing Hayward is going to be a power forward, on the account of every team he went to play power forward for ended up wanting someone else to play power forward instead of him
Both teams he went to play power forward for...played their best basketball when he wasn't playing power forward.
As for Keldon, to me the issue isn’t whether or not he objectively is a PF, but should he be our starting PF? Right now he is our PF. His defense and rebounding aren’t good so as a starting PF it’s a mixed bag but he’s becoming a better and better offensive option. Personally, I’d like to see a better rebounder playing alongside him, be it Sochan or Eason, but definitely not Haywood.
Yes please. I’ve wanted this guy on our team forever. He solves a lot of issues
Brown isn't their PF, but if he was, he's shorter than Hayward. Hayward is 6-8 in shoes. I clarify that because people will list guys barefoot but still compare them with shoed archetypes. If your classical concept of a PF is 6-9 or 6-10, then your modern concept is 6-8 or 6-9. Same player, but he'll just be listed shorted than he was previously.
Yeah, you're talking about the Miles Bridges that is a half-inch taller than Keldon and an inch-and-a-half shorter than Hayward.It's also concerning that you don't seem to understand the only reason this thread exist is because ANOTHER team has decided they would rather have someone else play the 4, Miles Bridges, than have Gordon play it.
We're talking about the Spurs salvaging on-court value for the salary dump proposed in the OP. We all know he's damaged goods. That you think teams wouldn't think to move him to a different position if that was the main reason for his decline (as opposed to age and injury), is just odd. We know teams had better wings than him and thus weren't willing to pay him. That's why my initial post suggested it wasn't a good move to get him.So how many times does Gordon Hayward have to go to a team to play power forward, only for the team to move on from him cause they have a better power forward, before you realize he isn't actually a power forward? Obviously the answer is more than 2.
I'd rather have neither, but that's besides the point.I'd rather have Collins play power forward than Hayward. Hayward at the 4 would be every bit as disastrous as Keldon and McBuckets.
This reeks of boomer talk. I doubt you actually want to get into the basketball theory of what PFs do on both sides of the court. I'm more imagining you're talking about size and rebounding more than sets and schemes. I don't particularly disagree with you wanting more from the spot. Pretty sure I've been talking about getting a bigger defensive forward for a while now. But that's not the same thing as saying Hayward and Johnson don't play the position -- because they do.Do you even know what a power forward is, or even is supposed to do, on a basketball court, on offense and defense? It doesn't look like it if you think Gordon ing Hayward is going to be a power forward, on the account of every team he went to play power forward for ended up wanting someone else to play power forward instead of him
And neither team just moved him to SF which would apparently have solved the problem.Both teams he went to play power forward for...played their best basketball when he wasn't playing power forward.
I like a few trades suggested here but I don't see how its realistic for the Spurs to pick up more.... more 1st round picks in the same draft. some other trades would have to happen.
he‘s playing PF cause we don’t have one. Even you should know that. Your argument is incredibly stupid. Just cause he plays out of position doesn‘t mean that that‘s his natural position. As a matter of fact, when teams play smallball the PF plays Center and has to somewhat protect the rim. Have you ever seen Hayward or Keldon Johnson play smallball 5?
According to your logic Derrick White is an SG and Nic Batum is a C.
Last edited by RC_Drunkford; 06-22-2022 at 12:35 PM.
I think the answer to that question will be provided by the Spurs this summer. If they make a move to acquire a PF through a trade, or through the draft, then we will know that they are looking for alternatives.
If they do everything but add a credible PF to the team this summer, then yea, I'd have to say they like Keldon right where he is thank you very much.
An option that you mention as well as one that Chinook talked about elsewhere is drafting someone like Sochan specially, but could be Eason, someone that could cross match with him on defense. I don't know what will work there, but whatever happens this summer we will know the Spurs answer, beyond what we can debate in a forum it.
The Spurs have had god knows how many PFs come and go. It's pure delusion to believe the Spurs don't want to play Johnson there. The Spurs want to play small. I don't actually agree with them, at least not to this extent. But it's clearly something Pop prefers.
Ugh, so you WERE the person who made that ty argument. I was just thinking about how ridiculous that conversation was. No, there are multiple ways to play small-ball. Some include the center being swapped out. Some include other positions. You can easily describe the Spurs as playing small right now. Moreover, a player not being able to play up a position doesn't mean they're already playing up a position. What kind of is that? Forbes is a two-guard. He can't play SF. That doesn't mean he's actually a point-guard. That's basic .As a matter of fact, when teams play smallball the PF plays Center and has to somewhat protect the rim. Have you ever seen Hayward or Keldon Johnson play smallball 5?
Also, Johnson has played center for the Spurs before. He actually played there a few days after you made the argument the first time. It was for a short stretch when the other team also played super small. But I got a big chuckle out of it when it happened. Hayward has apparently played center too, according to BBallRef.
Yes, like "how do the Spurs get a top 3 pick in the draft"?
but according to you bballref is wrong because Hayward is listed as an SF there as is Keldon Johnson
you really shouldn‘t be the one talking about people making ty arguments when you are defending one that you made yourself
Just because the Spurs play Johnson out of position doesn't mean he's a true power forward.
You’re articulating my point better than me. Yes, assuming we aren’t trading KJ, then one of those 3.5s would possibly be a good fit. But knowing Pop, he would much prefer Sochan to Eason because KJ + Eason is likely too chaotic/disorganized for his taste. But neither one is likely to start right away knowing how we roll, so yeah, lots of options.
I like the attempt to shift the goal posts, but the laughing emoji is making you look silly. BBRef isn't making a judgement from on high about a guy's "natural position". It was to counter your point that Johnson not playing center means he can't be a power-forward. That's the point that's ridiculous. The Spurs do not distinguish in their lineups, so BBRef isn't going by anything other than his draft position. 82games.com does have Johnson as having played at center last year, though he played way more at PF.but according to you bballref is wrong because Hayward is listed as an SF there as is Keldon Johnson
you really shouldn‘t be the one talking about people making ty arguments when you are defending one that you made yourself
It's getting boring, man. You just keep repeating your point like it's obvious with nothing to back it up besides saying it again and laughing. The Spurs had all the cap in the world to bring in a PF. They brought in two and cut/traded them. They cut one they drafted. They traded for one and then traded him away. That's the reality. The fiction is trying to believe the Spurs are playing Johnson there out of desperation and that they pairing forward they've had with him has just happened to be another combo-forward or even a wing like Vassell, McDermott or DeRozan. It's sad that I have to keep saying this, because I don't want the Spurs to ride with Keldon there. But there's such a disconnect with reality shown by some posters. There's very little chance that if the Spurs traded for Hayward that he wouldn't be the other starting forward for the team. I guess at that point, folks will pretend that someone is twisting Pop's arm.
Boston had Tatum at the 3 so no they were not going to play him there either.
Brown was absolutely the power forward when Hayward was there. His minutes suffered the most. Unless you going to tell me how you said Hayward played the 4 exclusively, and brown minutes got jerked around the most, but that somehow means brown WASNT the 4?
It's not Keldon's height that is the issue. It's his inability to rebound at a high level or offer any type of rim protection whatsoever WHILE also not being good enough offensively to make up for that, like Demar was when was playing the 4 his last year here. McDermott has the same problem, also not a 4. Hayward has had the same problem in boston and charlotte, both teams were a sieve defensively when he was at the four. This team is going nowhere until we get a for with at least semi traditional wingspan and if not then athleticism to make up for it. I'd be fine with Collins who I think is more a natural 4 than a 5 anyway. We were better defensively with him and Poeltl on the floor than with Poeltl and anyone else that wasn't him at the 4.
What exactly in basketball terms makes you think Heyward is actually a 4? What exactly in basketball terms does Heyward do at the 4 that would make you say yeah that is beneficial to my team?
You've been talking about getting a bigger defensive forward while somehow thinking a guy who has had to leave 2 teams because they had better power forwards than him?
Tatum has definitely played more power-forward than Brown. I thought you'd just gotten then confused and made a tongue-in-cheek remark, but I see you were serious ... and seriously wrong.
Brown wasn't, isn't and has never been the power-forward for Boston. Are you confusing him with someone else? Horford and Grant Williams play PF for the Celtics nowadays.Brown was absolutely the power forward when Hayward was there. His minutes suffered the most. Unless you going to tell me how you said Hayward played the 4 exclusively, and brown minutes got jerked around the most, but that somehow means brown WASNT the 4?
Collins and Poeltl barely played together (someone said less than a minute the whole season). Are you sure you aren't talking about Landale? Collins did play some PF and had success according to 82G, but it was a tiny fraction of his minutes. His top-20 lineups by minutes have at C except the one with Landale, and I'm not sure SOB was actually the center of that unit.It's not Keldon's height that is the issue. It's his inability to rebound at a high level or offer any type of rim protection whatsoever WHILE also not being good enough offensively to make up for that, like Demar was when was playing the 4 his last year here. McDermott has the same problem, also not a 4. Hayward has had the same problem in boston and charlotte, both teams were a sieve defensively when he was at the four. This team is going nowhere until we get a for with at least semi traditional wingspan and if not then athleticism to make up for it. I'd be fine with Collins who I think is more a natural 4 than a 5 anyway. We were better defensively with him and Poeltl on the floor than with Poeltl and anyone else that wasn't him at the 4.
I think he can guard most PFs better than Johnson can and can give much-needed offensive versatility there. The Spurs need play-making, and Hayward can do that with enough size to cause mismatches. Whether you want to call him or Johnson the PF is irrelevant. But the two would fit together. Not ideally, but you're talking about the team getting a lotto pick for taking him. I'm willing to let them try to figure that out.What exactly in basketball terms makes you think Heyward is actually a 4? What exactly in basketball terms does Heyward do at the 4 that would make you say yeah that is beneficial to my team?
Yes. I can talk about multiple scenarios at once. In the same way I can talk about signing Lavine, trading for Collins, drafting guys at every position at 9 or 20, etc. There are multiple ways the team can go this off-season. My ideal outcome and how I'd want the Spurs to behave under certain conditions can differ dramatically. If this were a team that was a power-forward away from contending, I'd be much more exact in how I'd want them to proceed. But this is a win-later salvage trade, and looking at it with those eyes, it could be beneficial.You've been talking about getting a bigger defensive forward while somehow thinking a guy who has had to leave 2 teams because they had better power forwards than him?
used to be a big mormon hayward fan... but thats a hefty contract to take on. if they take mcdermott back this could be appealing though
good for hornets.
but for us, no thank you
Would only be if Sa can’t use the cap space for anything meaningful anyways
I wouldn't be opposed to taking on Hayward depending on how much they'd be willing to attach. If it's just 15 for McDermott, forget it.
Since nobody asked, I'll answer a few of these questions . . .
- When Tatum and Brown have been the 3-4, the latter would typically defend the 4 if they had a post up game because of his superior strength.
- Like Johnson to McDermott, Bridges is more so the nominal 4 to Hayward, but they're really both 3.5's so who guards who is mostly matchup dependent.
Heyward is getting older and slower plus he gets injured a lot, and for 30 million plus a trade kicker ? Not only no but no. He's no more a PF than Keldon yet he gets paid twice as much as Keldon will get with his next contract. As Nancy Reagan used to say "Just say No"
I just find it funny when you defend those takes that nobody in the world agrees with, but of course you must be right. Like when you said Gasol was better than Poeltl when Poeltl became a starter that season while Pau Gasol was almost out of the league. And you still think you were right to this day
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
