Reply With Quote
"Solid" is not good enough tbh..
"Solid" is not good enough tbh..
Good to highlight the comparison with Cory. What about Simmons and Bertans. I'm sure Bertans numbers point to that he's the best rookie since Leonard.
Interesting... Yea it'll be interesting to see what happens. I do think he should try his hardest to be effective at other spots and not solely at the 4. Sure he'll be out there with different lineups and guys he might not be familiar with , but it'd go a long way if he becomes a guy you could play at several positions effectively. There are times he looks lost out there. The jump shot changes everything though. He could also be in a battle with Bertans for those minutes
I think Kyle is playing the wrong kind of game, he's tryng to be a finese player when he doesn't have the athleticism.
He's should start playing like an enforcer type player. A Bill Lambier that barely gets of the ground.
When you lower your expectations and then start from there. I guess it's "solid".
I've also used the Cojo comp, when people tried to call him a bust. As is, he is already far ahead of where Cojo was ,imo. If Simmons is gone, he has a chance to really show something in his forth season.
When you lower your expectations and then start from there. I guess it's "solid".
A coach very rarely will publicly criticize a player and say they're trash. So the next best thing they can say is your "solid".
It's not a word you want to hear from a coach if you're a player tbh
I'd disagree. First, because told Simmons that he needed to work on being "solid" in the off-season. If it were his euphemism for trash, it wouldn't make any sense. Second, they say coaches value a lower but consistent average over a higher but more volatile average. So being solid rather than streaky would be virtuous.
Why does Simmons matter? They don't play the same position...
Again if we're hoping Simmons exit helps Anderson...that's a problem. His problem is he can't play a role. He can only succeed with the ball in his hands (summer league). Again if he could only shoot there wouldn't be an issue
From my understanding a media member asked Pop about Kyle and Pop response was he's been solid. Solid is just a vague description..
He's been great, lately, one of the best defensive players in the NBA and finally showing some signs of offense(albeit against poor compe ion)..
Unfortunately, he's playing on a team with a stacked big man rotation..even Bertans would be a rotation player on most teams..
What I'm saying is that Pop's comments prior to this imply that being "solid" is something he values. He didn't think a guy like Simmons was solid last year, and he might still not. So saying Kyle is solid every game is like saying, "I don't have to worry about him being able to do his job." And that's not a criticism.
I get what you're saying. But like my first post said "solid" isn't good enough..it never is.
Being "solid" has gotten him ZERO playing time this year. While the guys who aren't "solid" across the board like Simmons, Bertans have seen some. They have a higher ceiling with certain traits that can win you games (shooting, athleticism). Being solid in the coaching world is not a good thing..because you can always do or get more then solid.
...but that's pop. He rarely goes into detail on what he thinks or sees.
I think "solid" can be context-dependent. In this instance, I think you are exactly right. And the comparison/contrast with Simmons is illustrative. Simmons shows some fantastic flashes on both ends of the court, but he also makes some very poor plays. He is extremely erratic. Pop would naturally encourage him to become "solid." By contrast, Kyle has been very solid of late - reliable and not erratic like Simmons.
To me, "solid" implies a high floor. It can be used as a compliment (for a player who has improved their floor) or in a backhanded way (insinuating that the player has a low ceiling).
Well, as I said before, they say that coaches value stability over volatility. So having a guy like Simmons with a higher ceiling but lower floor isn't necessarily that appealing. There are multiple players who have made long careers being solid and mediocre. It's good enough in a lot of cases.
The Spurs won't find a better defender than Anderson on the market for anything affordable. Nor will they find someone who can make plays and rebound for his price tag. Don't confuse is overall mediocrity for a lack of marketable skills. The dude is a few PPG away from being an everyday player. The rest of his game is not the problem.
Sure, but a high-floor/low-ceiling player is still not a bad player. Pop may have given up on Anderson having a ton of potential (I don't think he has), but he could still totally think he is a guy he'd like to have on his bench for years due to the things Kyle can do.
Simmons and Murray both have pretty low floors, but I would view Pop calling Simmons "solid" as a compliment and him calling Murray "solid" as damning with faint praise. Simmons doesn't have nearly as much room to grow as Murray.
Exactly...as a player you don't want this label on you.
When pop uses solid to describe a player, it means he's done everything the coaching staff has asked him to do.
Why do most GM's IN ALL SPORTS take that risk on the "athlete" who's limited in skill or experience over the guys who's good across the board but doesn't do one thing great?
Why do most coaches play the "solid" guys over those athletic prospects their GMs bring in?
Well that "solid" guy ain't playing here
But seriously depends on the team and what you need...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
