Reply With Quote
Yeah like we need a better rebounding PF/C.
I know it's SpursTalk tradition to slurp everything Bruno says, but there's no reason to think Risacher will be available at 4 or the Spurs will select Dillingham.
It has to come from core players who either aren't defensive liabilities or are stars offensively to offset it or it's meaningless as we've seen here for years with the likes of Mills, Forbes, Belinelli, McDermott playing outsized roles.
Yeah like we need a better rebounding PF/C.
Some of these crackhead franchises appear to have pretty good front offices right now. We're in a world where Washington and Charlotte may have their together. Unsure I can say the same about Detroit, although their drafting is pretty good.
Of the first seven, I don't think Charlotte will go Castle. Strange to see him slip (if so), but it's one of those drafts. Hornets take Holland, as they may lose Bridges. Castle may be smart for Portland, then.
Chicago... have more immediate needs than a project, but who knows.
OKC... Knecht seems like a non-Thunder player, but who knows. Need size who can fit their system. Filipowski? I think Buzelis could really appeal to them and could go up and get him.
why do people keep saying that...
Not sure how the Spurs see Matas at 4, but that Portland deal looks appealing since the PGs will be there at 7, 8. But my preference would be working something out with CHA as you suggest.
Matas is at the top of my Spurs board. If I did the Portland deal (assuming Atlanta shaking up the top 3 and Clingan falling to 4), I might also try to trade 8 + Cha pick back to Charlotte for #6 (credit to DPG), thereby giving us 6 & 7 + 14.
Too many Neanderthals on this team. I wouldn't mind having someone with actual bbiq
I think you mean the 4:40 spot.
It's hard to unpack what he's saying and I hope teams are questioning him about this. The Wildcats were a mess on defense this year, leading to their quick end in the tournament, and some of the problems I saw even with Reed, a better natural defender, appeared to stem from this. Calipari had both Reed and Rob guarding lead ballhandlers way too high and too close. They both got blown by. The only thing I could figure was he wanted to usher them toward shot blockers, but... there's no reason to pick up that high and close.
A bit of clear honesty here from him. I do wonder how well he can be coached up. As I've said before, he's like an offensive savant to me. His decisions and attacks are so immediate and spontaneous. He's like in the LaMello mold, where he's often not running any plays, he's just insta-reacting to what's present in front of him, and is very good at it. Doncic is this way, too. Just go out there and be effective. Now, lingering in the back of my mind is how much Dillingham can actually adhere to play-calls, be patient, be part of more complex sets. He certainly can to some degree - he did at Kentucky - but if that's just not the player he is, then he either can't work on the Spurs or can only come off the bench.
On defense, anyway, I don't know if he can keep up with the complex schemes the Spurs have. As natural as he is on offense, can he make key, constant reads on defense? It's not a matter of dying on screens or messing up positioning. He actually has the quickness to be okay in those regards. His size will be a problem on switches, but won't be much more of a problem than Sheppard or Tre or any other tiny guard in the league. It's a matter of how complex and ingrained his reacts can become when not simply a positional defender.
If Dillingham’s an offensive savant, won’t that compensate for ‘issues’ with sets? Battle/set plans often go out the window as soon as any variables kick in. And I doubt he’d struggle with a few set plays too much, even if it takes him a year or two to assimilate (like most Spurs players).
Because they do?
No, because he's just always improvising. Most NBA teams often just hand the ball to their best offensive player and run screens for them or let them cook. The Spurs are more complex (or Warriors, etc.). You want to get the best shots in the best places and improvise only when things break down or an advantage is clear. Also, if you're dependent on a superior player or two running the show, they have to be really superior in the POs or it gets predictable. If they take away their preferences and they're done. It works if you're a Luka Doncic. It doesn't if you're Trae Young.
However, that's really a lower-end outcome for him on offense. He wasn't supposed to be able to play sets coming into college and he fit in at Kentucky.
Because we were one of the worst 3 point shooting teams in the league? 28th out of 30 in 3G%.
we just did our utmost to get rid of mcdermott and can't wait to get rid of cedi, why would we try to add another useless shooter? We need someone who can score around the rim off the dribbling who is a great passer.. we don't have teams camping in the paint because we can't make an open 3...
To be clear,we don’t t want a specialist like McD. Most here want a. 3&D guy, or a creator who can shoot. If I’m explaining this like you’re 5, you obviously need it.
McDermott is one of the worst defenders in the league while being north of 30. Sheppard projects to potentially be a good to great defender (don't think his elite defense at the collegiate level translates but he won't be a liability) with obvious shooting strengths and possibily untapped talent.
he has dog wingspan
As long as he isn't a defensive liability tbh.
McDermott was kicked off the team not because he was a bad defender, but because he didn’t provide anything else on offense. It’s why I’m skeptical of the Spurs going for this type.
Eh, he was moved because he was a good soldier who wasn't going to resign here. They moved him to a playoff team and got something for it.
But yes, there was a period the Spurs went hard for shooters -- McDermott, Forbes, Wieskampf. And the fan base still es about it to this day.
Again, I'd much rather the Spurs trade both picks. There's no one in this draft in the top 10 worth it imo.
I think Risacher, Buzelis and maybe Holland could each be Day 1 starters at SF, with a big part of that being the fact we're so weak there.
Spurs need to add team athleticism. I watch the playoff teams and they have elite athleticism as compared to the Spurs, and can get the ball down court and score quickly.
Spurs can't even run an effective fast break most of the time. They pull up for a perimeter shot on a fast break.
They have no one other than Wemby, because of his size, who can create a shot at the rim and beat their man to the basket.
There’s always room for those shooters in championship teams, Bonner, Mills, Belli, Neal. Forbes was just in the wrong time, but he too would’ve worked during the Big 3. And I agree, McD was not kicked off. He was a good soldier and was traded to a good team for some chips, as what the Spurs do.
"These picks are worthless. Someone will want to trade for them."
Didn't say they were worthless. It's a role player draft; playoff teams will be interested in moving up imo. For instance, could see Memphis wanting to move up for Clingan. Only question is if the Spurs are willing to strengthen a possible long-term rival.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions