CelticsStrong
Beyond the Association => Maine Celtics / G-League => Topic started by: cordobes on April 21, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
-
Boston Celtics rookie J.R. Giddens knocked down a game-high 25 points and added 9 rebounds and 2 assists (http://www.nba.com/dleague/games/boxscore.jsp?gameId=2040800211) Boston Celtics rookie J.R. Giddens knocked down a game-high 25 points and added 9 rebounds and 2 assists to crash the Dakota Wizards and put the Utah Flash in the D-League Finals for the 1st time in the club history. The Flash host the 14ers in Game One on Wednesday night (can be watched via futurecast (http://www.nba.com/dleague/news/dleague_webcasts.html) ).
For a preview of the Finals, regular checks of Ridiculous Upside (http://www.ridiculousupside.com/) are mandatory.
JR Giddens, from my perspective, is pretty much a known quantity at this point: a very athletic guard, a ferocious open-court player and an amazing rebounder who needs to work very hard on his defensive fundamentals (he has potential but he’s too mistaken prone) and outside shooting, learning to cut and catch the ball with his knees flexed ready to initiate the shooting motion (as he moves very well off the ball) in order to find his niche in the NBA – as a wing defender and modest offensive player who knocks down open shots, cuts to the basket and finishes fastbreaks. I don’t think he can develop as a guard who plays on-the-ball as his ball-handling, decision making and shot-creation skills are far behind the minimum requirements at this level.
-
For the most part I agree with your assessment. I think is an above average passer, especially with cutting bigs. I also like his post game, with his interior passing and long arms. He moves the ball well, and is a willing passer.
Smarter defense is a must though, and his fundamentals should improve, but I think overall the talent is there to make it happen. He's a good shot blocker too.
-
Agree with the assessment. In a lot of ways, he is very similar to Tony Allen.
I think he will be given every opportunity to prove himself this summer and in training camp next year. I don't expect them to bring in another wing, unless they get a deal they can't turn down (like Artest for the MLE, or another vet for the vet minimum), and it will be open competition to see who has improved the most of the young wings in camp.
-
To take it further - I think he has plus defensive ability, but like many agressive young players, tends to gamble and not pay strict attention to the probabilities on a play or to adequately study his particular match up in order to learn the best defensive strategy for that particular player - this is a common flaw for many young players and we've seen it with a number of our own, including Perk, TA, and Rondo.
I don't think he'll ever be a good enough ball-handler to create iso - but his speed, explosiveness, and length should enable him to attack off screens and spot-up, taking advantage of defenders recovering or generally out of position on him.
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I am sure he'll get the opportunity to spend the summer and TC showing he has learned enough to challenge for minutes - him and TA and Pruitt are all in a mix for minutes at the end of the depth chart.
If Giddens can get a handle on his ADD and assert himself as he has at the D-league level he can make a contribution to this club - but he's got to act like he belongs - something he didnt' do the first time around.
-
I am sure he'll get the opportunity to spend the summer and TC showing he has learned enough to challenge for minutes - him and TA and Pruitt are all in a mix for minutes at the end of the depth chart.
Just to clarify what you mean by this, do you think Walker will be behind those guys, or he will be higher up on the depth chart?
-
I am sure he'll get the opportunity to spend the summer and TC showing he has learned enough to challenge for minutes - him and TA and Pruitt are all in a mix for minutes at the end of the depth chart.
Just to clarify what you mean by this, do you think Walker will be behind those guys, or he will be higher up on the depth chart?
Different position, I'd imagine - Giddens, TA and Pruitt are all guards, and Walker is a forward.
And then, I may just be sticking my nose where it doesn't belong.
-
Giddens is 24 years old - very old for a rookie. He better get whatever "it" is very quickly.
I just don't think J.R. will prove to be one of Danny's best moments. Hope I'm wrong, but I think he'll be a scoring SG (at best), and those are a dime a dozen in this league.
-
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
-
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
-
I think some of you guys are forgetting giddens was picked up by kentucky after high school and not fresno st. Out of high school he was a blue chip prospect
Even though he was co mvp in his league after kentucky i'm sure that hurt his development to play in a league he was too good to play in
i see the dleague not as good as the nba but on par with college style basketball if not better from what i'm seen on tv
giddens needed the experience and will make the team and big a pretty big contributer next year especially if ray allen is not resigned.
Even though enthuthiasm sometimes can be mistaken for clumsyness and forgetting the small things on the court, i rather have that than getting a player big patrick obryant attitude any day.
Giddens will be good
-
thanks for the thread. it is a nice diversion from the celtics' version of general hospital.
a question for those who have watched giddens. his d-league stats are good. and from what i read he has lots of physical talent, but is very unpolished, which at 24 does make me wonder about him.
so, do you think his main problem is basic intelligence? that is, while possessing physical talent, giddens just lacks the mental wherewithall to play nba level basketball well?
thanks in advance.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
so when do we develop young talent to replace our current starters? do we just ignore that and just keep signing 30+ year old backup bigs instead of trying out young talent (who by the way is just as good as the one we traded him away to make space for)
I hate the idea that becuase he didn't sign particular people in th off-season means he did a good job, your off your rocker if you think this team wasn't well constructed when they win 60 despite all of the injury issues.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
so when do we develop young talent to replace our current starters? do we just ignore that and just keep signing 30+ year old backup bigs instead of trying out young talent (who by the way is just as good as the one we traded him away to make space for)
I hate the idea that becuase he didn't sign particular people in th off-season means he did a good job, your off your rocker if you think this team wasn't well constructed when they win 60 despite all of the injury issues.
Ghand, even I think Danny has no clue yet what to do involving replacing the Big 3. None of our bench are starter worthy. If I was him I would solely focus on finding the next Paul Pierce for this team :-\, that's going to be the biggest hole to fill.
-
I think some of you guys are forgetting giddens was picked up by kentucky after high school and not fresno st. Out of high school he was a blue chip prospect
Even though he was co mvp in his league after kentucky i'm sure that hurt his development to play in a league he was too good to play in
i see the dleague not as good as the nba but on par with college style basketball if not better from what i'm seen on tv
giddens needed the experience and will make the team and big a pretty big contributer next year especially if ray allen is not resigned.
Even though enthuthiasm sometimes can be mistaken for clumsyness and forgetting the small things on the court, i rather have that than getting a player big patrick obryant attitude any day.
Giddens will be good
I think you mean Kansas and New Mexico, not Kentucky and Fresno State.
-
I think some of you guys are forgetting giddens was picked up by kentucky after high school and not fresno st. Out of high school he was a blue chip prospect
Even though he was co mvp in his league after kentucky i'm sure that hurt his development to play in a league he was too good to play in
i see the dleague not as good as the nba but on par with college style basketball if not better from what i'm seen on tv
giddens needed the experience and will make the team and big a pretty big contributer next year especially if ray allen is not resigned.
Even though enthuthiasm sometimes can be mistaken for clumsyness and forgetting the small things on the court, i rather have that than getting a player big patrick obryant attitude any day.
Giddens will be good
Giddens NEVER went to Kentucky or Fresno State, out of HS he went to Kansas and then after some off court trouble transferred to New Mexico.
This team is in trouble if he is a big contributor next year, and also Ray Allen isnt a FA until AFTER next season, so i don't really know what you are getting at. JR will be behind Ray, House, and TA on the depth chart for SG next year so i doubt he sees much more action than he did this year and will probably be in the d league most of the year again.
I do think he eventually can be a ok player, defense and slashing is always of use to teams.
-
so when do we develop young talent to replace our current starters? do we just ignore that and just keep signing 30+ year old backup bigs instead of trying out young talent (who by the way is just as good as the one we traded him away to make space for)
You really think that you can "develop" someone from our roster into a replacement for Garnett, Pierce, or Allen? Really?
This is not going to happen. We will sure need replacements for our starters, but that's not going to happen through "developping" Giddens, Walker, or anyone else we drafted in the 30s and later.
-
the beauty of the big 3's contracts are: they are all max deals, and they all end right around the time the players stop being max players. that means, after next year, we have a max salary to throw around and land a top FA (since ray will be off the books - well, he might resign with us, but not at a max salary). the next year, its pierce. again, same situation...able to offer a top FA a max contract, maybe resign pierce at a bargain price. kg's is the year after that. so, basically, we can offer max contracts to guys to replace the big 3 as we move along, while possibly still keeping the big 3 on the team, albeit in a lesser state, as they won't be as good by then.
-
the beauty of the big 3's contracts are: they are all max deals, and they all end right around the time the players stop being max players. that means, after next year, we have a max salary to throw around and land a top FA (since ray will be off the books - well, he might resign with us, but not at a max salary). the next year, its pierce. again, same situation...able to offer a top FA a max contract, maybe resign pierce at a bargain price. kg's is the year after that. so, basically, we can offer max contracts to guys to replace the big 3 as we move along, while possibly still keeping the big 3 on the team, albeit in a lesser state, as they won't be as good by then.
Who's going to tell this guy the truth?
-
the beauty of the big 3's contracts are: they are all max deals, and they all end right around the time the players stop being max players. that means, after next year, we have a max salary to throw around and land a top FA (since ray will be off the books - well, he might resign with us, but not at a max salary). the next year, its pierce. again, same situation...able to offer a top FA a max contract, maybe resign pierce at a bargain price. kg's is the year after that. so, basically, we can offer max contracts to guys to replace the big 3 as we move along, while possibly still keeping the big 3 on the team, albeit in a lesser state, as they won't be as good by then.
Oh, I wish it was that easy, but unfortunately, its not that simple. I would recommend that you take a look at this thread here, where the salary cap situation has been covered pretty thoroughly: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=20970.0
-
the beauty of the big 3's contracts are: they are all max deals, and they all end right around the time the players stop being max players. that means, after next year, we have a max salary to throw around and land a top FA (since ray will be off the books - well, he might resign with us, but not at a max salary). the next year, its pierce. again, same situation...able to offer a top FA a max contract, maybe resign pierce at a bargain price. kg's is the year after that. so, basically, we can offer max contracts to guys to replace the big 3 as we move along, while possibly still keeping the big 3 on the team, albeit in a lesser state, as they won't be as good by then.
This actually isnt true and has been brought up on this site ALOT, when Ray expires Rondo will have been re-signed and the Celts wont have nearly enough money for a big time FA. They COULD sign one in theory but it would mean they'd only be able to afford like 8 players, and about 3 or so of them would have to be minimum contract guys. Im not sure exactly how it works as its confusing lol, but its all in the link Chris gave above.
-
the beauty of the big 3's contracts are: they are all max deals, and they all end right around the time the players stop being max players. that means, after next year, we have a max salary to throw around and land a top FA (since ray will be off the books - well, he might resign with us, but not at a max salary). the next year, its pierce. again, same situation...able to offer a top FA a max contract, maybe resign pierce at a bargain price. kg's is the year after that. so, basically, we can offer max contracts to guys to replace the big 3 as we move along, while possibly still keeping the big 3 on the team, albeit in a lesser state, as they won't be as good by then.
Who's going to tell this guy the truth?
Idk what's going to happen in the next few years, but the only Celtic who has the drivers seat for another 5 years at least is Pierce. Pierce is the Larry Bird for this era's Celts, DA won't let him go and I doubt Pierce wants to go anywhere else. I've also wondered when Battie becomes a FA again....i'd love to see him in Boston again.
-
I think some of you guys are forgetting giddens was picked up by kentucky after high school and not fresno st. Out of high school he was a blue chip prospect
Even though he was co mvp in his league after kentucky i'm sure that hurt his development to play in a league he was too good to play in
i see the dleague not as good as the nba but on par with college style basketball if not better from what i'm seen on tv
giddens needed the experience and will make the team and big a pretty big contributer next year especially if ray allen is not resigned.
Even though enthuthiasm sometimes can be mistaken for clumsyness and forgetting the small things on the court, i rather have that than getting a player big patrick obryant attitude any day.
Giddens will be good
Giddens NEVER went to Kentucky or Fresno State, out of HS he went to Kansas and then after some off court trouble transferred to New Mexico.
This team is in trouble if he is a big contributor next year, and also Ray Allen isnt a FA until AFTER next season, so i don't really know what you are getting at. JR will be behind Ray, House, and TA on the depth chart for SG next year so i doubt he sees much more action than he did this year and will probably be in the d league most of the year again.
I do think he eventually can be a ok player, defense and slashing is always of use to teams.
Canada huh? Almost made it...
-
This actually isnt true and has been brought up on this site ALOT, when Ray expires Rondo will have been re-signed and the Celts wont have nearly enough money for a big time FA. They COULD sign one in theory but it would mean they'd only be able to afford like 8 players, and about 3 or so of them would have to be minimum contract guys. Im not sure exactly how it works as its confusing lol, but its all in the link Chris gave above.
oh crap...forgot about the contract rondo's getting and the whole renouncing stuff. [dang it]...well, if ray/paul/kg decide to take the veterans minimum w/ us after their contracts are up, or they retire (i could totally see the latter happening with paul and kg, actually), then we would have a decent amount of money to use, right?
-
Regarding Giddens, does he remind anybody else of Ronnie Brewer of the Jazz? Long, very athletic, quick hands (although Brewer has a couple inches on Giddens). Potential defensive stopper, but gambles too much at this point to deserve that label. Both are very good finishers, giving them high FG% despite questionable jumpshots. Both can be great rebounders from the SG position (Giddens may be a bit better). Both subpar for guards at the charity stripe.
Now, this comes with the obvious caveat that Brewer is a successful player at the NBA level while Giddens has only succeeded in the DLeague thus far. But doesn't Brewer look like an excellent best case comparison for Giddens?
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
You and Cordobes must be identical twins... :)
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
so when do we develop young talent to replace our current starters? do we just ignore that and just keep signing 30+ year old backup bigs instead of trying out young talent (who by the way is just as good as the one we traded him away to make space for)
I hate the idea that becuase he didn't sign particular people in th off-season means he did a good job, your off your rocker if you think this team wasn't well constructed when they win 60 despite all of the injury issues.
THAT is quoted for truth...
A veteran wing player is not a priority at all - its an option based off the development of Bill Walker and Giddens - if one of them leaves, bring on another wing - but getting a C/F and back PG are still the top priorities.
The market is ripe with options in the frontcourt and backcourt - wing is a position that is talent rich in the draft and most easily developed.
The team needs some young players to grow in the pipe line - not blindly, but with purpose - I think Ainge will evaluate Walker/Giddens during the off-season and in Summer League before making his final FA lists.
Getting another wing is also super easy to do leading up to the trade deadline - the team will have more movable contracts this year which will help to facilitate such a deal.
This team will look at C/F's right off the bat and will evaluate the backup PG situation and see where they can get some punch - i'd expect two players of high level experience and impressive resumes to come here this off-season.
Pierce and Allen weren't playing heavy minutes until the injuries started piling up 35-36 mpg of non-taxing play is hardly cause for calling for Ainge's head because of mis-management. A 60 win season despite all injuries, coupled with supplemental additions at two need areas AND the development of 5 key players is hardly something to balk at...
...but we're just going to argue about those points, so... :-X
-
First game of the finals is tonight, at 9pm catch the game live online from nba.com/dleague.
Here's an interview with Giddens though, which some might be interested in:
http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700035876&#msg5700496843
-
who's watching tonight?
-
I have it on at the moment, so I'll probably will.
-
I have it on at the moment, so I'll probably will.
good, the intensity of the NBADL finals is probably equivalent to the first game after you find out you clinched homecourt throughout the playoffs.
-
this intro is pretty ridiculous.
-
Lol, Giddens is jumping the ball. And he won.
-
nice shot by the PG at the buzzer.
jam by giddens...
-
JR just TA'd on the pump fake.
imagine the numbers TA could put up in the DL? he'd average 40 a game.
-
hey pal give a score....
-
NICE BLOCK JR!
then rebound... then the assist.
-
Josh Davis deserves another chance in the NBA. Solid player.
-
Josh Davis deserves another chance in the NBA. Solid player.
theres a few guys playing that could deserve spots in the NBA.
-
JR should fit in well. He's seems to be the Ultimate Garbage man, In the best of ways. His games is offensive boards, put backs, tip ins, hustle plays. I pray he's not a bust.
-
JR should fit in well. He's seems to be the Ultimate Garbage man, In the best of ways. His games is offensive boards, put backs, tip ins, hustle plays. I pray he's not a bust.
50% of the people at game 2 vs. the bulls have never heard of JR Giddens. Could his failure consider him a bust?
-
i with the Portland d-league team was here this year, Billy and JR would have been a good time.
-
He's a guard. He'll never produce enough offensive boards and tip-ins at the NBA level to keep him in the league. He needs to learn to defend and to shoot the ball.
-
He's a guard. He'll never produce enough offensive boards and tip-ins at the NBA level to keep him in the league. He needs to learn to defend and to shoot the ball.
he led his conference in scoring as well, its not like thats all he does.
plus our bigs are undersized, if we put him into the second unit at the 3 he could help huge on the offensive/defensive boards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMZ353-yrU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fballhype%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fjr%5Fgiddens%5Ffor%5Fmountain%5Fwest%5Fmvp%2F&feature=player_embedded
-
He's a guard. He'll never produce enough offensive boards and tip-ins at the NBA level to keep him in the league. He needs to learn to defend and to shoot the ball.
he led his conference in scoring as well, its not like thats all he does.
plus our bigs are undersized, if we put him into the second unit at the 3 he could help huge on the offensive/defensive boards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMZ353-yrU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fballhype%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fjr%5Fgiddens%5Ffor%5Fmountain%5Fwest%5Fmvp%2F&feature=player_embedded
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
-
rebound in where the trees are then the dunk. and he's fired up. i really think this kid will be a good player.
-
I agree with you on that cordobes, though I think he'll play more SF than SG, especially with the Celtics, and as such, he should be near the basket more often.
-
what do you guys think about carlos wheeler?
-
Come on, they HAVE to count that.
-
Come on, they HAVE to count that.
i know, right?
-
Seven rebounds for Giddens in the first half.
-
what do you guys think about carlos wheeler?
Good athletic tools, bad basketball player.
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
-
the defense of both teams is essentially 5 simultaneous 1on1 games with only 1 ball.
-
The announcer just said "good crowd here at the Oren (sp)". Hilarious ;D
-
what a game.
-
more people there than Stoneham MA basketball.
-
Comeback in progress.
-
what a shot.
-
Kruger is such a bad decision making. Giddens is intense!
-
Kruger is such a bad decision making. Giddens is intense!
Still 10 times the decision maker the PG they had earlier in the year. That guy was awful.
-
Kruger is such a bad decision making. Giddens is intense!
Still 10 times the decision maker the PG they had earlier in the year. That guy was awful.
oh my god, i'm so glad they traded him.
-
Kruger is such a bad decision making. Giddens is intense!
Still 10 times the decision maker the PG they had earlier in the year. That guy was awful.
Ah true, it was Dontell Jefferson. But he's a very good defender, that earned him a contract with the Bobcats. I think that kid may have a future in the NBA (although not as a floor-general).
-
why didn't the flash put d-wade in earlier?
oh my god....d-wade....flash.....
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
EDIT: And wow, Giddens with the putback facial. That was pretty.
-
Oh wow. Nice dunk.
-
JR in the HOUSE!
-
JR hasn't put the effort defensively tonight... worst defensive game I've seen from him. Other than that, he's having a good game.
-
wheeler sucks...
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
I also list defence as one of Giddens positives - in fact, in the OP I said that his biggest chance of finding a place in the NBA is like a wing defender. However, he has great tools, keeps a good defensive stance, has good lateral quickness, he's very long, his arms move quickly, etc. On the other hand, he looks at the ball when guarding his opponent, making him very prone to bite on fakes; he's frequently over-agressive trying to block shots he has no chance of getting; he frequently stares at the ball when defending off-the-ball, losing his man from sight, etc. He needs to polish his fundamentals and become more savy in order to be a good NBA defender.
-
in our defensive system Giddens could really flourish, if he just studies his opponants tendencies and can be there on the help he's fine.
plus i think he's trying to stay out of foul trouble so he can keep scoring.
-
I want to see Giddens get some plays on the post.
-
He needs to learn to shoot of the catch. In the NBA this last shot, where he passed a wide open midrange 2 to dribble twice and take a contested midrange 2 wouldn't fly.
-
I want to see Giddens get some plays on the post.
in the NBA? against Sasha Vujacic? or Ben Gordon? or any other undersized guard...
-
He needs to learn to shoot of the catch. In the NBA this last shot, where he passed a wide open midrange 2 to dribble twice and take a contested midrange 2 wouldn't fly.
I agree with this, he has been a bit tentative on his jump shot in the last couple of plays. At least he knocked the free-throw range one.
-
He needs to learn to shoot of the catch. In the NBA this last shot, where he passed a wide open midrange 2 to dribble twice and take a contested midrange 2 wouldn't fly.
your right, he needs to trust his open catch & shoot, not throw in a wild crossover and screw up his shot.
-
16 rebounds so far by Giddens.
-
if JR and Walker could add one shot to their game what would it be? (think of the way BBD added that mid jumper off the pick and pop)
i think JR could do work off of a baseline screen to set up some post shots
and if Billy could add the same shot as baby but a little further out it'd be nasty.
if either of these players can get there defenders going for an upfake then forget it becuase both of them can jump out of the building.
-
how stupid does that guy feel?
-
this really is a nasty game.
-
It would be kind of nice to have a clock on the screen....
-
how stupid does that guy feel?
That was like a play by the big dude on a highschool team... you know, the one who only plays basketball because he's bigger than everybody else but otherwise has no notable basketball skills or IQ.
-
16 rebounds so far by Giddens.
Yeah, his rebounding is amazing, but that last shot was not really one he should have taken...
-
It's so weird to see all the empty seats in a championship game.
I'd love to see Giddens get a chance at a game-winner here, but I assume that Dupree will be taking it.
-
I think the corner 3 will be money for Giddens. Other than that, have confidence in his midrange game. Walker I think he already has a good mirange shot, he simply needs to improve on how to get it off. He can work on his range.
But for Giddens, if they let him do it, I think his post game could be money for him.
It would be kind of nice to have a clock on the screen....
You're asking for too much, not even nba.com provides the time lol. How much does that suck?
-
16 rebounds so far by Giddens.
Yeah, his rebounding is amazing, but that last shot was not really one he should have taken...
Like someone mentioned before, most of his rebounding has come in rhythm though
-
I knew Kruger wasn't going to pass, he sucked.
-
Terrible decision by Kruger. That was the best shot they could get out of that?
-
what a stupid shot.
-
I knew Kruger wasn't going to pass, he sucked.
Yeah... terrible player. Where'd he come from? I don't remember him in the NCAA at all.
-
Terrible decision by Kruger. That was the best shot they could get out of that?
He doesn't have enough quickness but that was no excuse for that terrible decision.
-
It's so weird to see all the empty seats in a championship game.
I'd love to see Giddens get a chance at a game-winner here, but I assume that Dupree will be taking it.
Krugermeister says NO. He's like a homeless man Travis Diener, with all the dribbling and transition 3s.
-
I knew Kruger wasn't going to pass, he sucked.
Yeah... terrible player. Where'd he come from? I don't remember him in the NCAA at all.
I don't mind him to tell you the truth, he's good enough to be a factor in D-League, and since he's been with the team they've been playing better. Other than that, he sucks... but can shoot a bit.
Don't know who he is or where he's from though.
-
I knew Kruger wasn't going to pass, he sucked.
Yeah... terrible player. Where'd he come from? I don't remember him in the NCAA at all.
I don't mind him to tell you the truth, he's good enough to be a factor in D-League, and since he's been with the team they've been playing better. Other than that, he sucks... but can shoot a bit.
Don't know who he is or where he's from though.
Well, pretty much all I've seen of him or the Flash is the second half of tonight's game. I haven't seen his body of work at all; he just doesn't seem great at making good decisions and distributing the ball.
-
can we get Pruitt in there?
-
Good move to draw the contact, blew the free throws. Bah.
-
I knew Kruger wasn't going to pass, he sucked.
Yeah... terrible player. Where'd he come from? I don't remember him in the NCAA at all.
He's Lon Kruger (the former Hawks coach) son. I think he played for him at UNLV.
Josh Davis > Mikki Moore
-
That was great defence on the baseline.
-
That was great defence on the baseline.
Lol yeah, it surprised me that he put the effort in this possession considering he has 5 fouls.
-
Bad possession.
-
[dang]it, Kruger completely sucked.
-
That's gonna do it. Thanks, Kruger.
-
It's ovah
-
Kruger is the master of unclutch. It was an amazing comeback from the Flash though.
-
Kruger is the master of unclutch. It was an amazing comeback from the Flash though.
Indeed. It was a fun game.
-
thank god we'll be watching The Portland Sal****er next year, hopefully they don't trade for Kruger.
-
He's a guard. He'll never produce enough offensive boards and tip-ins at the NBA level to keep him in the league. He needs to learn to defend and to shoot the ball.
he led his conference in scoring as well, its not like thats all he does.
plus our bigs are undersized, if we put him into the second unit at the 3 he could help huge on the offensive/defensive boards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMZ353-yrU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fballhype%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fjr%5Fgiddens%5Ffor%5Fmountain%5Fwest%5Fmvp%2F&feature=player_embedded
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
He's a much better off-ball prospect than you give him credit for - and he is Rondo good at rebounding for a guard. He also fills the stat sheet with possessions - he is efficient with his shot conversion no matter what you think of his shot selection.
He's also improved across the board - so you can call any part of his game sub-par if you want, but he's developed substantially over the last 2 years.
Finally, D-League numbers are what they are, but NBA teams put stock in D-League performance and numbers from a rookie are more impressive than numbers from a 4-5 year D-league vet - seniority matters on this level too.
I think Giddens has clearly shown he has a skill set that can translate to the NBA court, but he hasn't shown the ability to take his mental game to a championship level of execution as a limited role player on the top level of performance.
That will determine if he sticks - not the limitations in his game.
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Like Tony Allen... oh, wait...
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Like Tony Allen... oh, wait...
The complexity of team schemes and his lack of understanding the importance of study scouting reports and not relying on natural ability are his greatest defensive flaws - like Perk, Rondo, Powe, Pruitt, and Walker before him...he can figure it out with patience and the right motivation...
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
so when do we develop young talent to replace our current starters? do we just ignore that and just keep signing 30+ year old backup bigs instead of trying out young talent (who by the way is just as good as the one we traded him away to make space for)
I hate the idea that becuase he didn't sign particular people in th off-season means he did a good job, your off your rocker if you think this team wasn't well constructed when they win 60 despite all of the injury issues.
Ghand, even I think Danny has no clue yet what to do involving replacing the Big 3. None of our bench are starter worthy. If I was him I would solely focus on finding the next Paul Pierce for this team :-\, that's going to be the biggest hole to fill.
The way I've seen some talk about Bill Walker you'd think we already have. IMO JR is more ready to contribute to an NBA roster right now than Walker is. I like Walker but for all the talk about Giddens' mental lapses Walker makes some brain dead plays out there.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
So hasn't Rivers' M.O. typically been to have his hand forced, by injuries, by financial commitments, and by these kids' subsequent strong play?
EDIT - I don't remember Josh Davis at all from his last stint in the league. But thanks to Ridiculous Upside, I've gotten on board the bandwagon.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
So hasn't Rivers' M.O. typically been to have his hand forced, by injuries, by financial commitments, and by these kids' subsequent strong play?
TP for being way more pursuasive about me in these matters, and also for the fact that I'll never get sick of that pic of Allen and Varejao...
-
We knew you meant. But I appreciate the compliment and return the Tommy Point.
Also, I don't want to knock Rivers too hard. He's done a lot right during his tenure here, even delivered Banner 17. And to the effect, I admit developing young talent is no longer a top priority. It's just that I'm not convinced that's ever been one of his strengths. The fact that he was handed a rebuilding project and a lot of young talent, and then kept the kids on the same page and playing hard throughout, tends to muddy the waters.
I do believe that finding minutes for Giddens and Walker should have been an easier proposition, considering this season's injuries, our veteran starters, and lack of depth at the 2/3. Maybe if we'd resigned James Posey and had T.A. for 82 games it would be a different.
-
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
Giddens was a SG in college.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187 (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187)
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
So hasn't Rivers' M.O. typically been to have his hand forced, by injuries, by financial commitments, and by these kids' subsequent strong play?
EDIT - I don't remember Josh Davis at all from his last stint in the league. But thanks to Ridiculous Upside, I've gotten on board the bandwagon.
I'll take it a step further and ask where were Giddens' minutes gonna come from?? Let's see...we have a HOF 2guard that plays at least 35mpg. Behind that guy is the team sparkplug and best shooter off the bench. Oh and when he's not playing is by most teammates assessment our best perimeter defender who has 4 years experience edge on Giddens. All this on a team with championship aspirations. Where was Giddens supposed to get minutes again?? JR fell victim to a numbers game. Only reason Walker got more run than him was because Walker's size gave him more versatility against power 3's and small 4's.
As BillfromBoston said earlier next year Giddens gets a real shot to compete for minutes. All 3 SGs that are currently in front of him could ALL be gone after next season. Much like Rondo, I think with time, study, and experience Giddens could have a Rondo-like impact on this team defensively as well as be an energizer on offense.
-
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
Giddens was a SG in college.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187 (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187)
That's not what he meant. He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
You presume they were ready to be quality players early in their rookie year. Just because they became quality NBA players doesn't mean they automatically should have been played a lot early.
Playing time is the only real power coaches have.
-
I'll take it a step further and ask where were Giddens' minutes gonna come from?? Let's see...we have a HOF 2guard that plays at least 35mpg. Behind that guy is the team sparkplug and best shooter off the bench. Oh and when he's not playing is by most teammates assessment our best perimeter defender who has 4 years experience edge on Giddens. All this on a team with championship aspirations. Where was Giddens supposed to get minutes again?? JR fell victim to a numbers game. Only reason Walker got more run than him was because Walker's size gave him more versatility against power 3's and small 4's.
Well, we see it differently, and I did address this in my follow up post - but more time was available for the rookies than I expected at the start of the season... In choosing not to re-sign Posey, or replace him with another veteran SF, there was a notable lack of depth at the swing position all year; most of House's minutes came at the point (almost 2:1), and T.A. missed 36 games.
Otherwise, your numbers game argument would hold more water, absolutely, but instead we had Paul publicly asking for respite:
“I’d like to see us do something,” said Pierce. “I think it would help us. You don’t want to burn out me and Ray coming down the stretch to where we’re having to play heavy minutes, especially going into the playoffs.”
and - it's safe to assume - Ray privately feeling the strain. Even if you don't want to trust the rookies with meaningful regular season minutes, we had plenty of games well in hand, were Rivers still held the rookies out. Most egregiously that February 38 point blowout win in Denver, where Walker saw 12 minutes and Giddens 5.
-
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
Giddens was a SG in college.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187 (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187)
that comment confused me as well.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
West was injured for much of those 40 games, and Gomes was actually given a shot right out of the gate as a rookie, but looked completely lost and overmatched.
Powe also had no clue what he was doing in '06-'07, and didn't figure out where he was supposed to be on the court until late last season.
You can make all these arguments that Doc held rookies back, but the fact is, not many of them proved they belonged on the floor in their rookie years.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
West was injured for much of those 40 games, and Gomes was actually given a shot right out of the gate as a rookie, but looked completely lost and overmatched.
Powe also had no clue what he was doing in '06-'07, and didn't figure out where he was supposed to be on the court until late last season.
You can make all these arguments that Doc held rookies back, but the fact is, not many of them proved they belonged on the floor in their rookie years.
The only clear case of "holding back" I've seen with Doc is when the C's were in full tank mode.
He played Telfair when Rondo was clearly a better option and the PG of the C's future. But that was for tanking purposes. Once we'd clinched our #2 lottery spot Telfair's minutes dropped. Rondo still got to play though.
-
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
Giddens was a SG in college.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187 (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15187)
that comment confused me as well.
My mistake, clumsy grammar. As BudweiserCeltic explains above, what I meant that rebounding is a nice skill for a guard to have but not exactly a big factor. If he was a superb rebounder for his position and a PF/C, things would be different.
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Like Tony Allen... oh, wait...
Exactly. Tony Allen averaged 20 minutes per game this season. And he got injured. Oh wait what? For a good part of the season our main weakness was exactly the lack of a defensively solid backup wing.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
So hasn't Rivers' M.O. typically been to have his hand forced, by injuries, by financial commitments, and by these kids' subsequent strong play?
I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Really? As I'm not convinced that's the case. Rivers waited forty games to play Delonte West in his rookie season, ditto Ryan Gomes in his. Rondo and Powe saw the court sooner but hardly had defined roles in 06-07. All four have since proven themselves as NBA starters, or near enough.
So hasn't Rivers' M.O. typically been to have his hand forced, by injuries, by financial commitments, and by these kids' subsequent strong play?
I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.
That's just flawed reasoning. Just as the existence of playing time doesn't mean that a player is good enough to play, the absence of it doesn't mean that a player is not good enough to play. Even with all the injuries, there was still Ray and Pierce in there that took the bulk of the SG/SF minutes. There was still House, who Doc will play over the rookies without second thought. Then came Marbury, which Doc needed to implement to our system. Heck, Walker was in our roster, when it was depleted, and he barely got playing time even if he was given high praises from Doc and Ainge since training camp.
Not saying that Giddens was ready for heavy minutes or anything like that, but that Doc didn't play him is meaningless as far as I'm concered as it regards the capabilities of a player to play in the NBA level. The NBA is littered (a bit of an exaggeration here) with players that just need a chance to play to prove themselves, that eat the bench when less capable players are on the floor for one reason or another (experience for one).
-
I don't know what I'm discussing here anyway. Arguing against a GM talk phrase about a rookie in the draft night? I've actually watched Giddens play enough to be absolutely certain he's not NBA ready defensively. And those who disagree, should explain to me what am I seeing wrong. Just in terms of manxman fundamentals, he doesn't get low enough when closing out; he tends to attempt to block shots only with his right hand; he's over-aggressive with his hands; etc.
Yeah, he has good defensive potential - I even stated in the OP that his niche in the NBA may be as a specialist wing defender; but he needs the savy, the experience and to polish some aspects of his game. But right now, a guy like Trey Johnson can easily put him in the air with a small fake. That wouldn't happen with a NBA ready defender.
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
-
That's just flawed reasoning. Just as the existence of playing time doesn't mean that a player is good enough to play, the absence of it doesn't mean that a player is not good enough to play. Even with all the injuries, there was still Ray and Pierce in there that took the bulk of the SG/SF minutes. There was still House, who Doc will play over the rookies without second thought. Then came Marbury, which Doc needed to implement to our system. Heck, Walker was in our roster, when it was depleted, and he barely got playing time even if he was given high praises from Doc and Ainge since training camp.
Not saying that Giddens was ready for heavy minutes or anything like that, but that Doc didn't play him is meaningless as far as I'm concered as it regards the capabilities of a player to play in the NBA level. The NBA is littered (a bit of an exaggeration here) with players that just need a chance to play to prove themselves, that eat the bench when less capable players are on the floor for one reason or another (experience for one).
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
-
He's a much better off-ball prospect than you give him credit for
Wow, really? Much better? How much better? Because I've been praising his off-the-ball game quite a bit! Just in this thread, I repeated that, and I quote myself, "he moves very well off the ball". In fact, I argued that he may have a future in the NBA merely due to his defence and off-the-ball game. And you still think I don't give him credit enough? What's the level of credit he deserves? Should we call him a more athletic Rip Hamilton? Rudy Fernandez with a better shot? Maybe a rich man's Reggie Miller as his celling? Really, I'm curious.
He's also improved across the board - so you can call any part of his game sub-par if you want, but he's developed substantially over the last 2 years.
Look, let's be serious here: I didn't deny he developed (although because I don't care); I just added he's still sub-par. What's your point? That I'm wrong? He shoots 68% from the charity stripe and 28% from distance. Isn't this sub-par shooting for a NBA guard? Is really that what you're trying to argue? The only reason he developed, if he did, is because he was so horrific to start with.
he hasn't shown the ability to take his mental game to a championship level of execution as a limited role player on the top level of performance.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
-
Who is Giddens?
-
That's just flawed reasoning. Just as the existence of playing time doesn't mean that a player is good enough to play, the absence of it doesn't mean that a player is not good enough to play. Even with all the injuries, there was still Ray and Pierce in there that took the bulk of the SG/SF minutes. There was still House, who Doc will play over the rookies without second thought. Then came Marbury, which Doc needed to implement to our system. Heck, Walker was in our roster, when it was depleted, and he barely got playing time even if he was given high praises from Doc and Ainge since training camp.
Not saying that Giddens was ready for heavy minutes or anything like that, but that Doc didn't play him is meaningless as far as I'm concered as it regards the capabilities of a player to play in the NBA level. The NBA is littered (a bit of an exaggeration here) with players that just need a chance to play to prove themselves, that eat the bench when less capable players are on the floor for one reason or another (experience for one).
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
That's not a question for me, that's a question for Doc. I don't think Giddens was ready to be a top notch defender myself, but that doesn't mean that I don't think he could have played some minutes at the NBA level and contribute. That I don't think he would get better throughout the season as he is taught discipline and held accountable for any defensive lapses (something that I doubt occurs much in D-League). As is, he's better defensively than many players currently in the NBA, and some get quality minutes.
Why is Mikki Moore getting on the floor then, even when Powe and Baby were options, when you feel he's a defensive liability and really hasn't played well for the C's?
There's a trust factor in here, and a track record to which Doc defaults to. He trusts experence, and he trust veterans to pull through. This explains many of the times Doc went small last year with Posey at the 4, even though it wasn't that good of a lineup... because he trusted those particular players with experience. This explains why he played PJ Brown so much, even when he was sucking, until Brown finally started playing with some level of consistency.
Bottom line is, that even with all the injuries, wing depth was still there.
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
You and Cordobes must be identical twins... :)
poor mother....
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
You and Cordobes must be identical twins... :)
poor mother....
BillFromBoston running out of basketball-related arguments and starting to use ad hominem attacks! Such a surprise!
-
Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:
Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?
If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.
As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.
-
Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:
Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?
If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.
As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.
Quoted for Truth...
-
Giddens is so naif defensively. Every D-Leaguer looks like a savy 10 year NBA veteran next to him...
It's comments like this that confuse me about Giddens. You've mentioned several times that Giddens has tools but isn't intelligent on defense, yet Danny claims that he can contribute defensively in the NBA already. Also, every scouting report I read listed defense as one of Giddens' biggest positives.
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
Like Tony Allen... oh, wait...
Exactly. Tony Allen averaged 20 minutes per game this season. And he got injured. Oh wait what? For a good part of the season our main weakness was exactly the lack of a defensively solid backup wing.
Depth chart - when TA went down Pruitt and House filled those backup minutes - Ray had been backing up Pierce at SF already - the team used seniority to determine PT...then Marbury came on board.
If Giddens had been so amazingly potent he couldn't be kept off the floor, he would have played. But his talents didn't outweigh his lack of experience and inconsistent execution of team schemes relative to the more senior players.
For the role he would have played, Doc favored execution over top-end potential because not alot was being required from the available role.
-
Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:
Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?
If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.
As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.
But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?
Again, this is merely a strawman argument.
I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.
This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?
-
I don't know what I'm discussing here anyway. Arguing against a GM talk phrase about a rookie in the draft night? I've actually watched Giddens play enough to be absolutely certain he's not NBA ready defensively. And those who disagree, should explain to me what am I seeing wrong. Just in terms of manxman fundamentals, he doesn't get low enough when closing out; he tends to attempt to block shots only with his right hand; he's over-aggressive with his hands; etc.
Yeah, he has good defensive potential - I even stated in the OP that his niche in the NBA may be as a specialist wing defender; but he needs the savy, the experience and to polish some aspects of his game. But right now, a guy like Trey Johnson can easily put him in the air with a small fake. That wouldn't happen with a NBA ready defender.
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
That may be so, but your argument against Giddens doesn't take into account the learning environment a player is afforded with PT on an NBA roster with consistent coaching.
It also doesn't account for the level this team is required to execute at because of their championship contending status.
Fewer rookies play substantial roles on contending teams rosters, its much more typical to see youth served on 18-35 win teams where expectations are low and player development is the focus.
Boston doesn't provide the same opportunity for the average rookie - regardless of theoretical PT availability. What Glen Davis did last year was rare, and he was woefully inconsistent and pretty ineffective overall - falling out of the rotation entirely come playoffs.
Most of the learning for youngsters on this team comes via practice and volunteer work outside of games. If Giddens had been drafted by a team like Memphis or Charlotte he likely would have gotten a greater opportunity to play through mistakes and the quality parts of his game would have shown through as well.
As far as his defensive flaws - again, those are fairly common for many rookies - the fact that he actually shows some enthusiasm for defense and has physical tools for the trade are the principle factors in his favor.
With consistent coaching and some opportunity to implement them in a coherent defensive scheme he'd improve greatly I believe.
The D-league is a revolving door of roster changes and role with narry a cohesive team defensive effort to be seen. So Giddens' flaws are going to be accentuated due to a lack of support from the overall team defensive effort.
Nothing he does wrong at this point is a-typical of a first year player, regardless of NCAA experience. If he had been in a situation where winning was secondary to player development I think he'd be much further along now.
Giddens is a learning-by-doing type, not as strong as an observer/studier type.
-
He's a much better off-ball prospect than you give him credit for
Wow, really? Much better? How much better? Because I've been praising his off-the-ball game quite a bit! Just in this thread, I repeated that, and I quote myself, "he moves very well off the ball". In fact, I argued that he may have a future in the NBA merely due to his defence and off-the-ball game. And you still think I don't give him credit enough? What's the level of credit he deserves? Should we call him a more athletic Rip Hamilton? Rudy Fernandez with a better shot? Maybe a rich man's Reggie Miller as his celling? Really, I'm curious.
He's also improved across the board - so you can call any part of his game sub-par if you want, but he's developed substantially over the last 2 years.
Look, let's be serious here: I didn't deny he developed (although because I don't care); I just added he's still sub-par. What's your point? That I'm wrong? He shoots 68% from the charity stripe and 28% from distance. Isn't this sub-par shooting for a NBA guard? Is really that what you're trying to argue? The only reason he developed, if he did, is because he was so horrific to start with.
he hasn't shown the ability to take his mental game to a championship level of execution as a limited role player on the top level of performance.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Ok cordobes - your pretty much just an openly hostile jerk when it comes to disagreements with your logic, so good for you.
Unless i'm mistaken, I quoted a statement that referenced a lack of off-ball effectiveness...I later read earlier in the thread where you praised it, so my bad - but why were there two seemingly divergent statements?
Secondly, I wasn't arguing for his proficiency in his shooting, just stating that he had improved greatly over the past two years. The point being that he has been on a nice and steady growth curve that is encouraging considering his physical gifts and overall athletic potential - wasn't arguing that he had arrived.
Seems clear that you prefer prospects who are far more polished and tend to avoid project-types. That's a good proposition in terms of probability as the Mbah Moute's and Courtney Lee's of the world carry less risk.
But there are enough Giddens and Walker types who are further behind developmentally but work themselves into quality players - Giddens seems like a pretty good prospect in this regard even if he is not where he needs to be yet.
As far as the smarmy remark about Giddens mentalality, if you don't think WHO the individual is as a personality matters, you have a serious flaw in your talent evaluation skills - those factors are heavily weighed when team building.
-
Geez, I know all that, but what's exactly the point you're trying to make? That's like the 1020232th post stating that rookies in a contender have less playing chances than in a lottery team and that may hurt their development. Do you really need such a testament to say that?
I've watched JR Giddens play. I've assessed what are, from my perspective, his current strengths, weaknesses and what seems to me the best developmental path for him in terms of skill-set.
I've been told wrong numerous times; but objective replies, so far, I only found two:
BillfromBoston criticizing my use of the expression "still sub-par" to describe Giddens 68 FT% and 28 3PT%; plus the same poster claiming that he deserves more credit for his off-the-ball game than I give him, in spite of my constant and enthusiastic praise for his off-the-ball game.
It's my opinion that the basketball discussion in this thread is closed for now.
-
Unless i'm mistaken, I quoted a statement that referenced a lack of off-ball effectiveness...I later read earlier in the thread where you praised it, so my bad - but why were there two seemingly divergent statements?
Which statement are you talking about?
p.s. - can you save both of us and the remaining posters from ad hominem arguments? I'm here to talk about basketball, not if you're a jerk, or I'm a jerk or whoever is a jerk. Please?
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
This is classic stuff!!!
I am more qualified than you could possibly imagine...
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
This is classic stuff!!!
I am more qualified than you could possibly imagine...
Once again, I'm here to talk about basketball, not about "qualifications". I hope you understand the irony of your answer when quoting a post with a link to the Appeal to Authority wikipedia article. I had to laugh with this one.
-
Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:
Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?
If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.
As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.
But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?
Again, this is merely a strawman argument.
I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.
This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?
You're denying it when you draw conclusions of Giddens incapability of playing in the NBA based on him not getting playing time. When you start citing examples of rookies getting playing time while Giddens is not. It's not a strawman argument, it's flawed logic. If you're basing it on other factors, then that's something entirely different, and on that we disagree on.
Not much wrong (things I might disagree with) with your reports on his skill-set, I just disagree with what you're concluding about them. Your position can't really be rebuffed because Giddens hasn't been given a fair chance to play in the league, so until then little can be concluded one way or the other. But then you defaulted to Doc as an end-all discussion pretty much.
I think if Giddens were given playing time this year, with his current skill set, he would have had an overall positive impact, and a strong chance that he would have improved defensively with the Celtics' environment and training. How much of an impact? I don't know. Just my opinion, and until he's given a fair chance in the NBA, and his game doesn't deteriorate while playing in the D-League if the chance is not given, I would still be of that opinion.
As is I think he's good enough to contribute, and that's where our main difference of opinion comes from. Citing lack of playing time, like many others around here have done as proof of why Giddens "sucks" (don't think you're of that opinion) is bad reasoning and bad logic.
-
Oh, and cordobes... just going to throw a name out for you:
Joe Alexander. Is he more NBA ready and more worthy of playing time than Giddens?
If your answer is no, then you might see how different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play.
As such, you can see how one can't default to the "oh, if Doc is not playing him it's because he's not ready" reasoning. If anything, your analysis of the player and your opinion of the player as you watch him has more value to me, than simply basing your opinion on someone else's choices because those choices are heavily influenced by other factors and motivations.
But when exactly have I denied that different circumstances and different motivations for doing things explain a ton of decesions of why some players play and some do not, outside of their skill/talent level or readyness to play?
Again, this is merely a strawman argument.
I don't think Giddens is NBA ready defensively and I've presented my arguments.
This thread is in its 10th page and so far not a single one of them has been rebuffed. Again, what's wrong in my reports of his skill-set?
You're denying it when you draw conclusions of Giddens incapability of playing in the NBA based on him not getting playing time. When you start citing examples of rookies getting playing time while Giddens is not. It's not a strawman argument, it's flawed logic. If you're basing it on other factors, then that's something entirely different, and on that we disagree on.
Not much wrong (things I might disagree with) with your reports on his skill-set, I just disagree with what you're concluding about them. Your position can't really be rebuffed because Giddens hasn't been given a fair chance to play in the league, so until then little can be concluded one way or the other. But then you defaulted to Doc as an end-all discussion pretty much.
I think if Giddens were given playing time this year, with his current skill set, he would have had an overall positive impact, and a strong chance that he would have improved defensively with the Celtics' environment and training. How much of an impact? I don't know. Just my opinion, and until he's given a fair chance in the NBA, and his game doesn't deteriorate while playing in the D-League if the chance is not given, I would still be of that opinion.
As is I think he's good enough to contribute, and that's where our main difference of opinion comes from. Citing lack of playing time, like many others around here have done as proof of why Giddens "sucks" (don't think you're of that opinion) is bad reasoning and bad logic.
When I have done this?
You are clearly confused. I've presented my arguments on why isn't Giddens ready and they had nothing to do with his lack of playing time - I've talked about his defensive deficiencies, his shooting, the bad decision making, the ball-handling, etc.
What I've also said is that if he didn't have those deficiencies, he'd be playing - because when and if he corrects those flaws, he'll easily be a rotational NBA player; and in every roster, let alone one with lack of backup wings like ours.
I don't know how to explain this better.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
There you go. That's the stance I was arguing against.
I don't disagree with what you're seeing from Giddens defensively though, though I think he's a bit better than you give him credit. I just think that's good enough for him to get on the floor, and improve while being given some playing time. There are plenty of inferior defenders playing in the NBA.
Maybe Pruitt should have been seeing more floor time by your reasoning, since I think at one point either Doc or Ainge were saying that he was being their best perimeter defender.
-
some young players are only good defenders until they get guarunteed playing time, then its all offense.
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
You're just rejecting the argument based on a point that has nothing to do with the argument itself. So what if I'm 'appealing to authority'? As a party who hasn't personally seen too much of Giddens, I'm going to go with the GM with access to practices and video footage over the forum member with access to a crappy video feed. If he's lying in this case, then so be it: that's a risk I'm willing to take in an attempt to find the best secondhand information I can find.
And frankly, you have no right to call out my deferral to Danny on this issue. "Doc's not playing him, so he must not be ready" is exactly the same thing as what I did: you're supplying an argument based on a higher authority's opinion.
And, um, I never said the mental game caused Giddens' flaws in the D League. The original comment was that Giddens isn't mentally ready to contribute on a championship level team. You disagreed, so I supplied that Giddens himself has admitted that he has butterflies when he plays with the Celtics, which supports the original argument. What I said had nothing to do with Giddens' skillset, but rather his mental readiness for the NBA game. I'm not sure if you misunderstood my comment or if you're just trying to put words in my mouth, but either way your argument didn't respond to mine at all.
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
There you go. That's the stance I was arguing against.
I don't disagree with what you're seeing from Giddens defensively though, though I think he's a bit better than you give him credit. I just think that's good enough for him to get on the floor, and improve while being given some playing time. There are plenty of inferior defenders playing in the NBA.
Maybe Pruitt should have been seeing more floor time by your reasoning, since I think at one point either Doc or Ainge were saying that he was being their best perimeter defender.
I've already answered in my last post. In the NBA, Giddens would be a foul machine. Pruitt is a decent defender of the point-of-attack, that's all; Doc and Ainge were lying.
-
Which I don't have any problems with, if he was a foul machine, since he wouldn't be expected to play heavy minutes. But until the time comes, we'll see if he would really be a foul machine.
Unless the stats are wrong, in the season he was only averaging 2 fouls 37 minutes.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
Bill Walker averages 3 fouls per 30 minutes in the D-League. In the NBA he averages 8.5 per 36 minutes and that's playing lots of garbage time.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
Bill Walker averages 3 fouls per 30 minutes in the D-League. In the NBA he averages 8.5 per 36 minutes and that's playing lots of garbage time.
I don't put a lot of stock in the foul numbers with players that don't get plenty of playing time. But yeah, Walker has been foul prone. Also, Walker was playing about 7 minutes less than Giddens.
-
It's my opinion that the basketball discussion in this thread is closed for now.
Bully for you, tell me why I should care? (Anyway you spoiled your own melodramatic exit by immediately returning.) Either way the discussion can and will go on very nicely without you, without any one of us. And discussion, back and forth, is why we're all here - or presumably. It's easy enough to find another topic if you don't like the direction this one has taken.
For someone who's ostensibly here to "talk about basketball" - and who usually does just that, and does it well - you've instead spent half this thread whining, condescending to the rest of us, and waving your sophomore philosophy class in our faces. Dull and irritating.
Anyway consider my hackles up.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
Bill Walker averages 3 fouls per 30 minutes in the D-League. In the NBA he averages 8.5 per 36 minutes and that's playing lots of garbage time.
I don't put a lot of stock in the foul numbers with players that don't get plenty of playing time. But yeah, Walker has been foul prone. Also, Walker was playing about 7 minutes less than Giddens.
My point is that D-League stats don't translate to the NBA games (at least when it comes to PFs).
-
You're just rejecting the argument based on a point that has nothing to do with the argument itself. So what if I'm 'appealing to authority'?
What argument? I'm rejecting the argument that Giddens defence is NBA ready by stating moves that he doesn't execute properly. How exactly are you defending your argument?
And frankly, you have no right to call out my deferral to Danny on this issue. "Doc's not playing him, so he must not be ready" is exactly the same thing as what I did: you're supplying an argument based on a higher authority's opinion
Nope, you're wrong. I've never said anything remotely close to the quote you attribute to me. I'll repeat the explanation:
I've presented my arguments on why isn't Giddens ready and they had nothing to do with his lack of playing time - I've talked about his defensive deficiencies, his shooting, the bad decision making, the ball-handling, etc.
What I've also said is that if he didn't have those deficiencies, he'd be playing - because when and if he corrects those flaws, he'll easily be a rotational NBA player; and in every roster, let alone one with lack of backup wings like ours.
I don't know how to explain this better. I hope it's enough to clarify the misunderstanding.
And, um, I never said the mental game caused Giddens' flaws in the D League. The original comment was that Giddens isn't mentally ready to contribute on a championship level team. You disagreed
Nope, you're wrong. My position is that there are more things that are holding him back - technical stuff (his shooting, defensive fundamentals, dribbling, etc.) - besides the "mental thing".
That's why the fact that he can't execute those things even when not playing in the NBA is relevant. It proves it isn't "all mental".
-
It's my opinion that the basketball discussion in this thread is closed for now.
Bully for you, tell me why I should care? (Anyway you spoiled your own melodramatic exit by immediately returning
I don't know why would you care, but you wrote an entire post commenting a simple sentence. :o It wasn't an exit, that's why I said "for now". I returned once there was new material worth commenting.
Either way the discussion can and will go on very nicely without you, without any one of us. And discussion, back and forth, is why we're all here - or presumably. It's easy enough to find another topic if you don't like the direction this one has taken.
For someone who's ostensibly here to "talk about basketball" - and who usually does just that, and does it well - you've instead spent half this thread whining, condescending to the rest of us, and waving your sophomore philosophy class in our faces. Dull and irritating.
Whatever. I suggest you to open a thread to talk about me. It's a boring issue, but as you're clearly interested, I see no problem with it. This one is about Giddens. Do you have an opinion on the kid's game or not?
-
It's a good night in Celtics land, folks - just a friendly reminder that we're all best served when we keep things civil around here.
Thanks.
-sw
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
Bill Walker averages 3 fouls per 30 minutes in the D-League. In the NBA he averages 8.5 per 36 minutes and that's playing lots of garbage time.
I don't put a lot of stock in the foul numbers with players that don't get plenty of playing time. But yeah, Walker has been foul prone. Also, Walker was playing about 7 minutes less than Giddens.
My point is that D-League stats don't translate to the NBA games (at least when it comes to PFs).
I know they don't. But also most of Walker's fouls, from what I can see, come from him coming in and just playing tough and smacking people around. He has ZERO concern about getting into foul trouble, nor does he play through long stretches in which he has to conserve himself to protect his fouls.
There's no a balance to average things out in what is the normal course of a game, and normalizing the stats. As such, that he comes in banging against everyone, inflates his fouls stats. Not saying that he hasn't been foul prone, but I think some context has to be inserted here, and it's the reason why I don't pay much attention to the number of fouls players that play very little during a game give.
And you mention PF, well he's not a PF (although he played some in college), so he's easily overmatched against them and he'll foul opposing PF more frequently than any other position he plays... though he has been commiting many fouls regardless.
-
How's that possible? He only played 8 minutes.
DLeague stats.
Bill Walker averages 3 fouls per 30 minutes in the D-League. In the NBA he averages 8.5 per 36 minutes and that's playing lots of garbage time.
I don't put a lot of stock in the foul numbers with players that don't get plenty of playing time. But yeah, Walker has been foul prone. Also, Walker was playing about 7 minutes less than Giddens.
My point is that D-League stats don't translate to the NBA games (at least when it comes to PFs).
I know they don't. But also most of Walker's fouls, from what I can see, come from him coming in and just playing tough and smacking people around. He has ZERO concern about getting into foul trouble, nor does he play through long stretches in which he has to conserve himself to protect his fouls.
There's no a balance to average things out in what is the normal course of a game, and normalizing the stats. As such, that he comes in banging against everyone, inflates his fouls stats. Not saying that he hasn't been foul prone, but I think some context has to be inserted here, and it's the reason why I don't pay much attention to the number of fouls players that play very little during a game give.
And you mention PF, well he's not a PF (although he played some in college), so he's easily overmatched against them and he'll foul opposing PF more frequently than any other position he plays... though he has been commiting many fouls regardless.
PF = Personal Fouls
Walker is extremely foul prone. There's a more important reason for a player like Walker to control his fouls than the possibility of getting in foul trouble or fouling out. Too many fouls put the team under the penalty sooner.
-
That's not enough incentive for a player to be careful with his fouls, especially with good percentage of playing time he gets in garbage time.
-
I don't know what I'm discussing here anyway. Arguing against a GM talk phrase about a rookie in the draft night? I've actually watched Giddens play enough to be absolutely certain he's not NBA ready defensively. And those who disagree, should explain to me what am I seeing wrong. Just in terms of manxman fundamentals, he doesn't get low enough when closing out; he tends to attempt to block shots only with his right hand; he's over-aggressive with his hands; etc.
Yeah, he has good defensive potential - I even stated in the OP that his niche in the NBA may be as a specialist wing defender; but he needs the savy, the experience and to polish some aspects of his game. But right now, a guy like Trey Johnson can easily put him in the air with a small fake. That wouldn't happen with a NBA ready defender.
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here either and that's not even being fecetious. Who said JR was ready defensively now for THIS team? Fact is, the term "NBA ready" is EXTREMELY subjective and more often than not is dependant on the roster and the overall goals of the team. For instance, Giddens would be "NBA ready" on the LA Clippers, Timberwolves and OKC Thunder. On those team he would play through mistakes he wouldn't get the chance to here.
JR has potential as a plus wing defender, a good off-the-ball slasher and playmaker. He's a rookie that didn't get minutes on a championship team. Big deal. He'll have a shot next year. Right now he's working on his game and carrying the Celtics minor league team to the Finals. It really could be a lot worse.
As for quoting any Ainge analysis, it may seem like a copout to you but seeing as how Ainge has seen Giddens FAR more than you, I or anyone here and gets to see him up close on a regular basis I'd say his opinion and analysis carries a bit more weight than ours.
What's so ironic is that the veteran role players many clamor for to fill out our core rotation were originally the JR Giddens' of yesteryear(sometimes with less overall talent) that at some point got a chance to play through mistakes most likely on bad teams. Joe Smith immediately comes to mind. Antonio McDyess is another. Bottomline, this isn't about Giddens' talent. He has that. It's about experience, which he doesn't and on a championship team that's not looked at as a plus. You really don't have anything to argue about.
-
That's not enough incentive for a player to be careful with his fouls, especially with good percentage of playing time he gets in garbage time.
Fouls are a bad thing, you can't just brush them off. When he has been given burn in non garbage time he has proven to be foul prone too.
Walker gave the Bulls 6 cheap free throws on St. Patrick's day. Its not a lack of incentive that makes Walker foul prone. It is a lack of proper experience/skill. I haven't seen enough to say which for him. He obviously has the physical tools.
-
As for quoting any Ainge analysis, it may seem like a copout to you but seeing as how Ainge has seen Giddens FAR more than you, I or anyone here and gets to see him up close on a regular basis I'd say his opinion and analysis carries a bit more weight than ours.
This assumes that Danny is telling the truth. There is certainly an incentive for him to lie when he proclaims his evaluations of players in public.
Depending on trade proposals, press spin about his first round pick, or in massaging players egos.
-
He's improved his shooting substantially over the court of the summer and this season, including his FT accuracy, which was a must.
He's still subpar.
His ability to read the court and make plays for others is excellent - i'd equate it to Delonte West in terms of him being a 2-guard that can find cutters and kick-out options when he gets himself in trouble - also very adept at dump-off/drop-off passes to bigs when he draws defensive attention from help defenders.
I don't see this.
Out of curiosity, what are you guys basing your assessments on? Have you watched his D-league games? (This isn't a sarcastic question).
In my case, yes, about half a dozen of them.
what are his stats for the post season and regular season in the d league?
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=jr_giddens
Cordobes quoted for truth.
Two words for JR: Bench fodder.
And for the record, if Ainge fails to bring in a quality wing in the off-season who can defend and shoot from the perimeter, it'll be time to seriously ratchet up the discussion about his job performance. That failure would be inexcusable. Veteran wing help is a top off-season priority, along with an end to Danny's collection of 7-foot stiffs - oops, "low risk, no upside" bigs, and, again, a veteran point off the bench.
You and Cordobes must be identical twins... :)
poor mother....
BillFromBoston running out of basketball-related arguments and starting to use ad hominem attacks! Such a surprise!
You're just as predictable...
Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.
The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.
I actually agree with the bulk of what you've written from a scouting perspective on his base skills. But what I don't agree with is the level of inconsistency or deficiency you seem to be attributing to his game.
Giddens is not ready to play Tony Allen's 20 mpg for instance. But I do believe that if he got Glen Davis' opportunity from last season, he could contribute a similar amount of positive minutes and have his own moments of quality play.
That is enough for me to believe, when coupled with his growth as a person and player over the past 2 years, that he is a prospect that has potential and COULD contribute something meaningful on the NBA if an opportunity arose.
I don't think he's a playoff team rotation player. I don't believe he's where he needs to be to stick in the league. But I like where he's at relative to his draft position, his past performance history, and my perception of his abilities now and in the future.
I think he has the chops to work at it, but will need the right situation to get his shot at showing what he can do and what he can improve on.
I really don't understand why that is so beyond your respect. You jump to way too many conclusions in your argument. You cut yourself off from the possibility of too many things and you start formulating arguments against counterpoints before you've spent 5 minutes trying to decipher exactly what the other persons point was.
You have a good head for evaluating players, but you act like you have all the bases covered already.
Your own observation and analysis has flaws in it too - but you don't act like it. Yet, you constantly call for "proof" from others when all you throw out is observational analysis devoid of any historical context.
Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?
Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why, and what past experience feeds it?
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
This is classic stuff!!!
I am more qualified than you could possibly imagine...
Once again, I'm here to talk about basketball, not about "qualifications". I hope you understand the irony of your answer when quoting a post with a link to the Appeal to Authority wikipedia article. I had to laugh with this one.
No, you are here to question the quality and validity of others responses and then dismiss their justification for it by stating its a "basketball argument" seperate from the source of the argument. ::)
-
If Giddens was ready to contribute defensively in the NBA, I'm pretty sure Doc would have find minutes for him.
I don't agree, for the reasons others have stated. But even if it's that the case, then Doc would have played Giddens, because injuries forced his hand.
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
There you go. That's the stance I was arguing against.
I don't disagree with what you're seeing from Giddens defensively though, though I think he's a bit better than you give him credit. I just think that's good enough for him to get on the floor, and improve while being given some playing time. There are plenty of inferior defenders playing in the NBA.
Maybe Pruitt should have been seeing more floor time by your reasoning, since I think at one point either Doc or Ainge were saying that he was being their best perimeter defender.
Yes :)
-
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
With all due respect, I'm a lot more inclined to believe Ainge's opinion than yours. You've watched a bunch of games on a not-very-good video feed from nba.com. He has direct access to the kid's practices, as well as game footage from now all the way back to his KU days - and probably even from high school, if he wanted it for some reason.
With that said, I think there's a lot of difference between 'ready to contribute defensively in the NBA' and 'ready to be a defensive ace in the NBA'. People bite on shotfakes in the NBA all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't good defenders. Tony Allen is notorious for it, yet he's universally regarded as at least a good defender, and most consider him very good. With all of this said, though, I took Ainge's comments to mean that he could hold his own defensively in the NBA, but currently his offensive game isn't enough to get him minutes. I don't necessarily think Danny was endorsing JR seeing the court in a meaningful game.
Sorry to break it for you, but there are three major problems with that kind of argument:
1) Sometimes Ainge lies. It's part of the job. For example, have you ever heard a manager in the draft night saying bad things about his pick?
2) Sometimes Ainge is wrong.
3) It's a formal fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I've presented my arguments in defence of my position, explicitly pointing out some of the moves that Giddens doesn't master. Either you explain what I'm seeing wrong or there's no point on carrying on this conversation; it's useless to debate with people whose only argument is an Appeal to Authority.
Post-modernism has arrived to basketball. ::)
"Mental game" is a cliché used too often.
Every player in the league would disagree with you. Ask MJ if mind games played a role in his game. Ask Paul Pierce the same question. Ask Rondo, or Baby, or even Ray and Eddie if confidence is important to their jumpshots. Ask any player if homecourt is a significant advantage. These are all aspects of the mental game, and they are very important to basketball.
As for the topic relevant to the comment, Giddens has admitted that he's nervous and his legs feel like jelly when he steps on an NBA court. Is this not noteworthy? This is one of the biggest reasons that Billy got occasional real minutes this season while Giddens saw 7 minutes in garbage time: Walker showed the ability to keep his composure at the NBA level, and JR didn't. I really don't think this side of the game can be dismissed as a cliche.
First, you are using a strawman argument. I didn't say that the mental part is not important; just that it's also a cliché used too often, mostly by people who don't actually have the tools to scout players from a fundamentals perspective and just throw the "not mentally ready" gimmick.
Second, and more important, I'm watching Giddens playing in the D-League. I'm identifying flaws in his game when he's playing in the D-League, not in the NBA. How exactly the fact that he's nervous in the NBA is relevant for this?
You theory is that the fact that he's not mentally ready to play in the NBA is what causes his deficiencies in terms of individual skills when he plays in the D-League? Quite interesting, to say the least. You should write a book on this, the coaching community around the world would be shocked.
You're just rejecting the argument based on a point that has nothing to do with the argument itself. So what if I'm 'appealing to authority'? As a party who hasn't personally seen too much of Giddens, I'm going to go with the GM with access to practices and video footage over the forum member with access to a crappy video feed. If he's lying in this case, then so be it: that's a risk I'm willing to take in an attempt to find the best secondhand information I can find.
And frankly, you have no right to call out my deferral to Danny on this issue. "Doc's not playing him, so he must not be ready" is exactly the same thing as what I did: you're supplying an argument based on a higher authority's opinion.
And, um, I never said the mental game caused Giddens' flaws in the D League. The original comment was that Giddens isn't mentally ready to contribute on a championship level team. You disagreed, so I supplied that Giddens himself has admitted that he has butterflies when he plays with the Celtics, which supports the original argument. What I said had nothing to do with Giddens' skillset, but rather his mental readiness for the NBA game. I'm not sure if you misunderstood my comment or if you're just trying to put words in my mouth, but either way your argument didn't respond to mine at all.
Yes :)
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
Maybe we would be speculating on their "readiness" had they been picked by the Cs and relying on their D-League stats/play to analyze their potential as an NBA player just as we are now left to do here with Giddens.
I'm definitely intrigued by JR. I'd probably have been happier had they picked Jordan, but I think he has shown enough in the D League to keep me hopeful.
my big thing to watch with him will be his ball handling.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?
there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....
-
Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.
Make up your mind: when I said his shooting was sub-par you disagreed and you also said that I wasn't giving him enough praise for his off-the-ball game.
The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.
Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.
But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.
This is only one example, but there are more.
Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?
Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why, and what past experience feeds it?
Huh? I'm not sure if I understand these questions. Please clarify. Are you asking if I predict Giddens to succeed as a NBA player or not? Anyway, I suspect Coach Knight would love to asnwer them.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
Also, I am not sure about Mbah a Moute, but Lee is also a very good offensive player who has knowledge of floor spacing, and overall offensive flow that is very advanced for a Rookie.
This is something that I think a lot of people overlook. Being a good one on one defender is not enough to play on a championship caliber team. The two biggest requirements for anyone to play for the C's is an understanding of defensive rotations, and offensive spacing. If they cannot grasp that, they will not see the floor.
Now, if they are desperate, Doc is more likely to throw a veteran out there who is still learning these things (like Mikki), than a rookie, since at least with a veteran, there is some hope they can pick it up on the fly.
This is a big reason why Walker did not see much of the floor. His offensive spacing was pretty terrible for much of the season, and on defense, he was often over-rotating, and being too aggressive, which was causing problems. Going back to the preseason, Giddens was having even more trouble than Walker was with these things.
Perhaps things changed throughout the season, but it is very tough to tell since based on the couple games I saw, no one in the D-league knows how to space the floor or rotate correctly on defense.
-
Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.
But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.
what's the difference in arguing "Danny said so" vs. "Doc said so"?
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...
Is it possible? Yeah, the same way it'd be possible if the C's had drafted Rose, Love, Lopez.
Is it probable? Not at all. They would play, the same way Brook Lopez would play. Or Pietrus. Or Charlie Bell.
-
Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.
But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.
what's the difference in arguing "Danny said so" vs. "Doc said so"?
I've already explained that numerous times:
I've presented my arguments on why isn't Giddens ready and they had nothing to do with his lack of playing time - I've talked about his defensive deficiencies, his shooting, the bad decision making, the ball-handling, etc.
What I've also said is that if he didn't have those deficiencies, he'd be playing - because when and if he corrects those flaws, he'll easily be a rotational NBA player; and in every roster, let alone one with lack of backup wings like ours.
I don't know how to explain this better. I hope it's enough to clarify the misunderstanding.
Maybe I should have phrased it "if he was a good NBA defender right now, he'd surely be good enough to see playing time for the C's".
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?
there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....
Both of you are making valid points.
Jr Giddens doesn't have the base game that Mbah Moute or Lee had - both of those rookies had very defined skill sets that could plug in right away and then with opportunity they grew it from there.
However, the Davis example is a perfect one when discussing Giddens as well. Davis had "flash" moments over his rookie year all the way till Jan/Feb of this year, but lacked consistency and made plenty of mistakes.
But as his PT increased and he was forced to increase his efficiency and execution he did so - not necessarily quickly either.
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
The last part of this argument has been the premise that Boston's depth chart and Doc's preference for more reliable players prevented Giddens from getting a look this year to see what he could do with it.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
But if pressed into action, I don't believe he is such a net negative that he wouldn't have some positive impact on the team during his PT if he got the chance - I think he'd have his moments similar to some other rookies we've seen.
I think he'd be comparable to how Tony Allen was in his rookie year or Davis during his - flashes of brilliance mixed with substantial inconsistency...
-
I don't know what I'm discussing here anyway. Arguing against a GM talk phrase about a rookie in the draft night? I've actually watched Giddens play enough to be absolutely certain he's not NBA ready defensively. And those who disagree, should explain to me what am I seeing wrong. Just in terms of manxman fundamentals, he doesn't get low enough when closing out; he tends to attempt to block shots only with his right hand; he's over-aggressive with his hands; etc.
Yeah, he has good defensive potential - I even stated in the OP that his niche in the NBA may be as a specialist wing defender; but he needs the savy, the experience and to polish some aspects of his game. But right now, a guy like Trey Johnson can easily put him in the air with a small fake. That wouldn't happen with a NBA ready defender.
I'll never understand why people argue about basketball without knowing what they're talking about. Simply stating "oh, but Ainge said X" and "Ainge said Y" is not a proper argument, from my point of view.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here either and that's not even being fecetious. Who said JR was ready defensively now for THIS team? (...)
I'll explain it to you: I've written that, IMO, Giddens' defensive game is still very flawed and while he has potential he needs to work on it hard in order to be able to play in the NBA; currently, he wouldn't be a good NBA defender, quite the opposite.
ANother poster disagreed with me. The reason he presented was that "Ainge said he was ready".
I'm arguing with that poster or with anyone who disagrees with my assessment (in terms of Giddens' current defensive quality, I've recognized his potential) only because A or B said so and so.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...
Is it possible? Yeah, the same way it'd be possible if the C's had drafted Rose, Love, Lopez.
Is it probable? Not at all. They would play, the same way Brook Lopez would play. Or Pietrus. Or Charlie Bell.
in your opinion, sure...but it is not a given. plus, comparing Lee and Mbah Mute to the ROY and #1 pick is a little bit of a stretch, no?
again, where would the debate be on Baby right now had all those injuries not happened and still getting limited minutes?
sometimes a player needs to play to SHOW his NBA readiness...like Lee and Mbah were also able to do..
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...
Is it possible? Yeah, the same way it'd be possible if the C's had drafted Rose, Love, Lopez.
Is it probable? Not at all. They would play, the same way Brook Lopez would play. Or Pietrus. Or Charlie Bell.
in your opinion, sure...but it is not a given. plus, comparing Lee and Mbah Mute to the ROY and #1 pick is a little bit of a stretch, no?
again, where would the debate be on Baby right now had all those injuries not happened and still getting limited minutes?
sometimes a player needs to play to SHOW his NBA readiness...like Lee and Mbah were also able to do..
What about Pietrus or Bell? Would they play?
-
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
exactly, we simply do not know where this debate would be had Giddens gotten solid NBA minutes this year like Lee and Mbah had...
look at Anthony Randolph. was he NBA ready at the beginning of the season? yet given minutes toward the end of the season he showed some nice skills to build on...
sometimes playing is the proof...
-
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
That's true for literally hundreds of players. It could be said about guys like Trey Johnson or Mo Almond. Othyuss Jeffers or Renaldo Major. Richard Hendrix or Craig Smith. And obviously, all the draftees and rookies who are playing in the D-League or Europe: from Joe Crawford to James Gist.
If the point is merely to say that Giddens is a good basketball player and has a shot of being a NBA player, well, that's kind of obvious. Very, very obvious. That's why he was drafted.
However, right now he has flaws that he need to correct in order to be a reliable NBA contributor and not some guy who gets a couple of call-ups, some invitations for training camps, eventually one season a non-guaranteed contract, etc.
-
Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.
Make up your mind: when I said his shooting was sub-par you disagreed and you also said that I wasn't giving him enough praise for his off-the-ball game.
The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.
Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.
But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.
This is only one example, but there are more.
Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?
Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why, and what past experience feeds it?
Huh? I'm not sure if I understand these questions. Please clarify. Are you asking if I predict Giddens to succeed as a NBA player or not? Anyway, I suspect Coach Knight would love to asnwer them.
This is exactly what's so exasperating about debating with you - I didn't disagree when you said his shooting was sub-par. I said that he had improved substantially over the past 2 seasons and was crediting his rate of growth.
As a prospect with talent who lacks NBA experience, that 2 year growth rate counts for something - especially when it comes in his weakest areas.
As far as me stating that "you don't know who I am" (not my words) understand that my statement was predicated on the fact that you summarily dismissed my qualification to speak about a players mentality and how it affects his play. Yet, you have no idea what my qualification for such a statement may be and were condescending about it. I study the affects of personality on performance for a living so the comment p---ed me off.
As for the final point - yes, I'm asking how you read Giddens as a prospect. It seems you have little regard for his package of skills and physical ability, so I was asking your opinion.
I never said Giddens was NBA-ready defensively, but I do think he could play some NBA caliber defense in spots because he has tremendous physical attributes and has a great motor and enthusiasm for it.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
by the way, my point wasn't that they absolutely wouldn't play on the Cs, my point is that it is possible that we would be in the exact same situation (debating D-League stats/play) in analyzing them had they been drafted by the Cs instead of Giddens/Walker...
Is it possible? Yeah, the same way it'd be possible if the C's had drafted Rose, Love, Lopez.
Is it probable? Not at all. They would play, the same way Brook Lopez would play. Or Pietrus. Or Charlie Bell.
in your opinion, sure...but it is not a given. plus, comparing Lee and Mbah Mute to the ROY and #1 pick is a little bit of a stretch, no?
again, where would the debate be on Baby right now had all those injuries not happened and still getting limited minutes?
sometimes a player needs to play to SHOW his NBA readiness...like Lee and Mbah were also able to do..
What about Pietrus or Bell? Would they play?
I guess so. The point is that Lee and Mbah were able to demonstrate their readiness and more importantly BUILD on that readiness because they had the playing time to do so.
like BFB pointed out, just because Lee and Mbah were further along in certain aspects of their game at the beginning, we don't know about the learning curve that JR would have undergone had he been able to play the same amount of minutes. That's why i brought up Baby as an example - who throughout much of the season was criticized, but once given the time responded.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?
there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....
Both of you are making valid points.
Jr Giddens doesn't have the base game that Mbah Moute or Lee had - both of those rookies had very defined skill sets that could plug in right away and then with opportunity they grew it from there.
However, the Davis example is a perfect one when discussing Giddens as well. Davis had "flash" moments over his rookie year all the way till Jan/Feb of this year, but lacked consistency and made plenty of mistakes.
But as his PT increased and he was forced to increase his efficiency and execution he did so - not necessarily quickly either.
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
The last part of this argument has been the premise that Boston's depth chart and Doc's preference for more reliable players prevented Giddens from getting a look this year to see what he could do with it.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
But if pressed into action, I don't believe he is such a net negative that he wouldn't have some positive impact on the team during his PT if he got the chance - I think he'd have his moments similar to some other rookies we've seen.
I think he'd be comparable to how Tony Allen was in his rookie year or Davis during his - flashes of brilliance mixed with substantial inconsistency...
I think you are missing the reason Davis was playing last year as a rookie. Yes, he was inconsistent. But this was mostly due to the fact that he had a limited skillset, and had not yet learned how to be effective against certain matchups. This is also why later in the year, as Powe improved, Davis and Powe were used so effectively in a platoon. Doc was able to determine where these tough matchups were (for both Davis and Powe), and put them in positions to succeed.
But one thing that was not inconsistent was Davis' knowledge and ability to execute within the system. Even though offensively he was very limited by his lack of a consistent shot, and an inability to score over longer, more athletic defenders, he had understanding of offensive spacing, and the defensive rotations well beyond a normal rookie's level.
For guys like this (Scal is another excellent example), Doc overlooks other weaknesses in their games, and allows them to see the floor, simply because by knowing the system, rotations and spacing, it does not throw everyone else's game off kilter the way it does when someone is lost out there.
I think the best comparison to Giddens is really Powe, who always had a ton of talent, and when you put him on the floor could make things happen...but it took him a long time to completely feel comfortable in the system, so that he wasn't causing problems for the whole teams flow and execution.
I think this is where Giddens is right now. He has some great skills, but he has not fit into the system yet. Once he does get the system down, he could make an incredibly quick leap, just like Powe did last year, from a guy who didn't play at all, to a guy who is tremendously productive. (and then of course the inevitable "Doc held Giddens back" threads)
-
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
That's true for literally hundreds of players. It could be said about guys like Trey Johnson or Mo Almond. Othyuss Jeffers or Renaldo Major. Richard Hendrix or Craig Smith. And obviously, all the draftees and rookies who are playing in the D-League or Europe: from Joe Crawford to James Gist.
If the point is merely to say that Giddens is a good basketball player and has a shot of being a NBA player, well, that's kind of obvious. Very, very obvious. That's why he was drafted.
However, right now he has flaws that he need to correct in order to be a reliable NBA contributor and not some guy who gets a couple of call-ups, some invitations for training camps, eventually one season a non-guaranteed contract, etc.
You are taking your examples to the extreme - yes many, many players could play "some" quality NBA minutes - that's not specific enough.
Their has to be a criteria of volume of quality minutes. IMO Giddens talent-to-flaw ratio is enough for him to play quality minutes on par with players like Glen Davis last year and Tony Allen his rookie year. I actually think Hendrix and Almond could do this too, but that's another topic...
Many players may be capable of looking good now and then, but their are tiers - I think Giddens is on a high enough tier that he could occupy a spot in a 10 man rotation and make people take notice enough to not be lumped with the masses.
-
I never said Giddens was NBA-ready defensively, but I do think he could play some NBA caliber defense in spots because he has tremendous physical attributes and has a great motor and enthusiasm for it.
and could be quite a bit better right now had he received NBA minutes during the course of the season. Sometimes you build the skills in NBA games...
-
I guess so. The point is that Lee and Mbah were able to demonstrate their readiness and more importantly BUILD on that readiness because they had the playing time to do so.
Well, yeah, that's what happens to good players: they got playing time. And we are precisely arguing Giddens' readiness. I'm saying he's not ready, his game is still too flawed.
like BFB pointed out, just because Lee and Mbah were further along in certain aspects of their game at the beginning, we don't know about the learning curve that JR would have undergone had he been able to play the same amount of minutes. That's why i brought up Baby as an example - who throughout much of the season was criticized, but once given the time responded.
I've always said that the theory that BBD was just a fringe NBA player and was getting minutes because Doc was showcasing him was absolutely nonsensical and that BBD was playing more than Powe because he was playing better (although I find Powe the better player) - even if not statistically translated. I'm not surprised he has responded. What I'm saying is that Giddens wouldn't respond - unlike Davis, even last season Davis, he's further behind on his development.
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?
there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....
Both of you are making valid points.
Jr Giddens doesn't have the base game that Mbah Moute or Lee had - both of those rookies had very defined skill sets that could plug in right away and then with opportunity they grew it from there.
However, the Davis example is a perfect one when discussing Giddens as well. Davis had "flash" moments over his rookie year all the way till Jan/Feb of this year, but lacked consistency and made plenty of mistakes.
But as his PT increased and he was forced to increase his efficiency and execution he did so - not necessarily quickly either.
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
The last part of this argument has been the premise that Boston's depth chart and Doc's preference for more reliable players prevented Giddens from getting a look this year to see what he could do with it.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
But if pressed into action, I don't believe he is such a net negative that he wouldn't have some positive impact on the team during his PT if he got the chance - I think he'd have his moments similar to some other rookies we've seen.
I think he'd be comparable to how Tony Allen was in his rookie year or Davis during his - flashes of brilliance mixed with substantial inconsistency...
I think you are missing the reason Davis was playing last year as a rookie. Yes, he was inconsistent. But this was mostly due to the fact that he had a limited skillset, and had not yet learned how to be effective against certain matchups. This is also why later in the year, as Powe improved, Davis and Powe were used so effectively in a platoon. Doc was able to determine where these tough matchups were (for both Davis and Powe), and put them in positions to succeed.
But one thing that was not inconsistent was Davis' knowledge and ability to execute within the system. Even though offensively he was very limited by his lack of a consistent shot, and an inability to score over longer, more athletic defenders, he had understanding of offensive spacing, and the defensive rotations well beyond a normal rookie's level.
For guys like this (Scal is another excellent example), Doc overlooks other weaknesses in their games, and allows them to see the floor, simply because by knowing the system, rotations and spacing, it does not throw everyone else's game off kilter the way it does when someone is lost out there.
I think the best comparison to Giddens is really Powe, who always had a ton of talent, and when you put him on the floor could make things happen...but it took him a long time to completely feel comfortable in the system, so that he wasn't causing problems for the whole teams flow and execution.
I think this is where Giddens is right now. He has some great skills, but he has not fit into the system yet. Once he does get the system down, he could make an incredibly quick leap, just like Powe did last year, from a guy who didn't play at all, to a guy who is tremendously productive. (and then of course the inevitable "Doc held Giddens back" threads)
yeah, i don't think i disagree with that. the point i was making about BBD is that he was criticized for much of the season, but was only able to really show his skills once he got the PT...which he may not have gotten had there not been all those injuries...
-
If Doc sees in Giddens a NBA ready defender, why hasn't he played him when he needed a defensive backup wing so much? Because he lacks experience? Precisely, he's not NBA ready. Courtney Lee or Mbah a Moute were playing NBA defence basically since day 1. Giddens is not on their level.
How do we know that Lee or Mbah a Moute would have gotten more playing time on this Cs team than Giddens and/or Walker?
By watching them? Honestly, I don't know other way.
I fail to understand the rationale that "oh, they only play because their team is much weaker, with the C's they wouldn't sniff the floor". I mean, I understand the concept - it's difficult for a rookie to get PT in a strong team that is contending - but it isn't a dogma. When shall we stop? Would Eric Gordon get minutes with the C's? Brook Lopez? Kevin Love? Derrick Rose? Or can one assume none of them would play more than Giddens and Walker?
Besides, Lee is starting for a 59 wins team that are also a contender and playing well. The idea that he wouldn't be able to gain minutes coming off the bench for Boston is preposterous. Especially considering that our bench wasn't really that good...
not preposterous. where would the argument about BBDs ability be right now had we not experienced injuries to basically every other big on the roster forcing him into a starting role?
there simply is no way to know that Doc would be playing Lee and/or Mbah a Moute had they been drafted here....
Both of you are making valid points.
Jr Giddens doesn't have the base game that Mbah Moute or Lee had - both of those rookies had very defined skill sets that could plug in right away and then with opportunity they grew it from there.
However, the Davis example is a perfect one when discussing Giddens as well. Davis had "flash" moments over his rookie year all the way till Jan/Feb of this year, but lacked consistency and made plenty of mistakes.
But as his PT increased and he was forced to increase his efficiency and execution he did so - not necessarily quickly either.
Maybe we are all not understanding you Cordobes, but it seems to me that you are saying that NOTHING Giddens currently does is good enough to provide ANY quality minutes on an NBA floor - that's what it sounds like.
My argument, and I believe others as well, is that Giddens has enough talent and skill to provide SOME quality minutes on an NBA floor and that with that time he'd likely improve.
The last part of this argument has been the premise that Boston's depth chart and Doc's preference for more reliable players prevented Giddens from getting a look this year to see what he could do with it.
for all his fundamental deficiencies, Giddens is still capable of blocking shots, stealing the ball, scoring, and rebounding on an NBA level - the consistency of those things relative to the errors he'd make offensively and defensively isn't great, so he hasn't played.
But if pressed into action, I don't believe he is such a net negative that he wouldn't have some positive impact on the team during his PT if he got the chance - I think he'd have his moments similar to some other rookies we've seen.
I think he'd be comparable to how Tony Allen was in his rookie year or Davis during his - flashes of brilliance mixed with substantial inconsistency...
I think you are missing the reason Davis was playing last year as a rookie. Yes, he was inconsistent. But this was mostly due to the fact that he had a limited skillset, and had not yet learned how to be effective against certain matchups. This is also why later in the year, as Powe improved, Davis and Powe were used so effectively in a platoon. Doc was able to determine where these tough matchups were (for both Davis and Powe), and put them in positions to succeed.
But one thing that was not inconsistent was Davis' knowledge and ability to execute within the system. Even though offensively he was very limited by his lack of a consistent shot, and an inability to score over longer, more athletic defenders, he had understanding of offensive spacing, and the defensive rotations well beyond a normal rookie's level.
For guys like this (Scal is another excellent example), Doc overlooks other weaknesses in their games, and allows them to see the floor, simply because by knowing the system, rotations and spacing, it does not throw everyone else's game off kilter the way it does when someone is lost out there.
I think the best comparison to Giddens is really Powe, who always had a ton of talent, and when you put him on the floor could make things happen...but it took him a long time to completely feel comfortable in the system, so that he wasn't causing problems for the whole teams flow and execution.
I think this is where Giddens is right now. He has some great skills, but he has not fit into the system yet. Once he does get the system down, he could make an incredibly quick leap, just like Powe did last year, from a guy who didn't play at all, to a guy who is tremendously productive. (and then of course the inevitable "Doc held Giddens back" threads)
I think that's the best way i've heard it stated...agreed...Giddens plays all over the map and needs to learn how to harness what he currently has in order to apply his skill set to the situations that call for it.
If he could do that, I don't believe his current fundemental deficiencies would prevent him from contributing to a team in a meaningful way.
As an extension of that - its my belief that much of that comes from his mentality as a player and his background - he's been playing as a primary option playmaker/decision maker for 3 years straight and has over-relied on his physical gifts for much of his career.
It was only his last year in New Mexico that I had ever seen him "think" through a game, and that was as the leader of the attack.
SO, Giddens is re-inventing himself on two different levels IMO - he is learning how to read the game AND learning how to play it from a completely different perspective.
-
Dude, nobody is arguing against what you are seeing on the court - I certainly am not staing that Giddens is "good" at all the things you say he is "bad" at.
Make up your mind: when I said his shooting was sub-par you disagreed and you also said that I wasn't giving him enough praise for his off-the-ball game.
The point myself and some other posters are trying to make is that there is a difference at being deficient in certain elements of the game and being deficient to a degree where the player is incapable of playing meaningful minutes, period.
Yeah, obviously. Everybody agrees with that. You don't need to write so much to make such an obvious point. But there's a disagree whether he's ready or not to play meaningful minutes in the NBA. If people want to argue he is, fine; but use proper arguments and not stuff like "Ainge said so" and "Oh, you don't who I am!!!!!!". That's just childish.
But others things have been said: that Giddens was NBA ready defensively, for example. And he isn't - he lacks a lot of defensive fundamentals for 24 years old senior college.
This is only one example, but there are more.
Let's say all your points are legit - what are the case histories that make Giddens' current flaws proof-positive of his likelihood to fail or succeed?
Show me something more than the fact you can watch a player and see him execute at an effective or ineffective level...how does his game grow or stagnate, why, and what past experience feeds it?
Huh? I'm not sure if I understand these questions. Please clarify. Are you asking if I predict Giddens to succeed as a NBA player or not? Anyway, I suspect Coach Knight would love to asnwer them.
This is exactly what's so exasperating about debating with you - I didn't disagree when you said his shooting was sub-par. I said that he had improved substantially over the past 2 seasons and was crediting his rate of growth.
Re-read the thread.
As far as me stating that "you don't know who I am" (not my words) understand that my statement was predicated on the fact that you summarily dismissed my qualification to speak about a players mentality and how it affects his play. Yet, you have no idea what my qualification for such a statement may be and were condescending about it.
I didn't do that. Once again, re-read the thread. I've just stated that the "mental approach" issue is very frequently an easy, but wrong, solution to explain why is a player struggling.
And, essentially, that it was absurd to suggest that the fact that Giddens doesn't always go for block attempts with the proper hand in a D-League game was due to his mental readiness to play in the NBA. That's simply absurd.
As for the final point - yes, I'm asking how you read Giddens as a prospect. It seems you have little regard for his package of skills and physical ability, so I was asking your opinion.
Read the first post of the thread. Do you need any clarification?
-
I guess so. The point is that Lee and Mbah were able to demonstrate their readiness and more importantly BUILD on that readiness because they had the playing time to do so.
Well, yeah, that's what happens to good players: they got playing time.
good, but flawed. you're not arguing that Lee and Mbah a Mute aren't flawed players, right?
-
I guess so. The point is that Lee and Mbah were able to demonstrate their readiness and more importantly BUILD on that readiness because they had the playing time to do so.
Well, yeah, that's what happens to good players: they got playing time.
good, but flawed. you're not arguing that Lee and Mbah a Mute aren't flawed players, right?
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
-
I guess so. The point is that Lee and Mbah were able to demonstrate their readiness and more importantly BUILD on that readiness because they had the playing time to do so.
Well, yeah, that's what happens to good players: they got playing time.
good, but flawed. you're not arguing that Lee and Mbah a Mute aren't flawed players, right?
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
as with Baby, sometimes only once given the time can the readiness be demonstrated. and like pointed out with Leon, sometimes only once given the time can the flaws be corrected and maybe more importantly those flaws be shown to not prevent the player from being able to contribute at the NBA level...
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
I guess the question is "how settled" the debate is over the "readiness" of Giddens...
your position seems to be that it is completely settled because if he were ready, he would have played.
The counter argument is that Doc is very stingy with PT for young players and that JR may have gotten those minutes to demonstrate his readiness on another team. Plus, as with Baby, sometimes the readiness isn't seen until the player actually gets the minutes.
I mean, you brought up Charlie Bell and Pietrus. are you suggesting that the fact they didn't play much means that they aren't able to contribute at the NBA level?
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
I guess the question is "how settled" the debate is over the "readiness" of Giddens...
your position seems to be that it is completely settled because if he were ready, he would have played.
Completely wrong. Read my posts.
I say he isn't ready because I watch him playing - and I've detailed the flaws I see in his game. He didn't play much because he isn't ready.
So far the only argument in favour of the thesis that he's ready is "Ainge said he was NBA ready defensively".
I mean, you brought up Charlie Bell and Pietrus. are you suggesting that the fact they didn't play much means that they aren't able to contribute at the NBA level?
Huh? But they are contributing at the NBA level: they both averaged 25 mpg and started more than 20 games for their teams.
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
I guess the question is "how settled" the debate is over the "readiness" of Giddens...
your position seems to be that it is completely settled because if he were ready, he would have played.
Completely wrong. Read my posts.
I say he isn't ready because I watch him playing - and I've detailed the flaws I see in his game. He didn't play much because he isn't ready.
So far the only argument in favour of the thesis that he's ready is "Ainge said he was NBA ready defensively".
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
I guess the question is "how settled" the debate is over the "readiness" of Giddens...
your position seems to be that it is completely settled because if he were ready, he would have played.
Completely wrong. Read my posts.
I say he isn't ready because I watch him playing - and I've detailed the flaws I see in his game. He didn't play much because he isn't ready.
So far the only argument in favour of the thesis that he's ready is "Ainge said he was NBA ready defensively".
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
Thank you and TP. You managed to sum up in a sentence what I failed to explain in several paragraphs.
-
My mistake, clumsy grammar. As BudweiserCeltic explains above, what I meant that rebounding is a nice skill for a guard to have but not exactly a big factor. If he was a superb rebounder for his position and a PF/C, things would be different.
EDIT - Clearly the humor was lost on this one.
-
I think that's the best way i've heard it stated...agreed...Giddens plays all over the map and needs to learn how to harness what he currently has in order to apply his skill set to the situations that call for it.
If he could do that, I don't believe his current fundemental deficiencies would prevent him from contributing to a team in a meaningful way.
As an extension of that - its my belief that much of that comes from his mentality as a player and his background - he's been playing as a primary option playmaker/decision maker for 3 years straight and has over-relied on his physical gifts for much of his career.
It was only his last year in New Mexico that I had ever seen him "think" through a game, and that was as the leader of the attack.
SO, Giddens is re-inventing himself on two different levels IMO - he is learning how to read the game AND learning how to play it from a completely different perspective.
Exactly, and this is one reason I think they are doing him a great disservice by having him play in the glorified rec-league that is the D-league.
While just like any young player, he still has holes in his game he needs to fill, his biggest problem is he needs to continue to develop his ability to play within a team system, and as a role player, rather than "the man" (something he has in common with Tony Allen).
Perhaps I just watched the wrong games, but from what I saw in the D-league, no one was playing as a team. It looked like a bunch of guys playing for themselves, and because of his talent level, Giddens once again was just getting more time as a focal point, rather than a role player.
I understand the thinking that its better than sitting in street clothes in Boston, but I find it hard to believe that he has been developing in the areas he needs to develop the most playing out in Utah. Of course Danny Ainge has forgotten more basketball than I will ever learn, so hopefully I am wrong.
-
My mistake, clumsy grammar. As BudweiserCeltic explains above, what I meant that rebounding is a nice skill for a guard to have but not exactly a big factor. If he was a superb rebounder for his position and a PF/C, things would be different.
This is just bad thinking. My jaw dropped so hard it practically fell off. Try to argue that it's not our point guard (10.7 rebounds per!) who's currently covering for Garnett - not Davis, or Perkins, or even Pierce (though Pierce is also an excellent rebounder at his position.) Maybe you haven't watched any of the last three games?!?
It's hard to overstate Giddens talent on the boards, and not fair to discount while screeching about his defensive short comings - even though he's not a power forward - *groan.* 100% wrong. Nope.
EDIT - Not that I should be surprised, I guess.
Yes, I've watched the last 3 games.
I've written here that Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position.
No, rebounding ability isn't a skill as important for a guard as it is for a big man. Do you disagree? If not, what's exactly your point?
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
We have one on our team, his name is Tony Allen.
To a lesser extent, Jamario Moon and Ronnie Brewer - they're both starters. Mario West, although he fits the 'scrub' label pretty well. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure I could look more up.
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
Thank you and TP. You managed to sum up in a sentence what I failed to explain in several paragraphs.
Really? I thought you disagreed with my stance that Giddens defensive game is flawed from a fundamentals perspective, that he has to work hard on it and that he's not ready to play NBA defence - you even said you believe his defence was NBA ready in spite of not watching him playing.
Nice to see you agreeing with my assessment now though.
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
We have one on our team, his name is Tony Allen.
You really need to see Giddens playing.
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
We have one on our team, his name is Tony Allen.
You really need to see Giddens playing.
My bad, I read your post wrong - I thought you were just asking for players with the general skillset of flawed but potent defense, poor ballhandling and shooting and questionable decision-making. Giddens isn't on their level, that's certainly true.
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
Thank you and TP. You managed to sum up in a sentence what I failed to explain in several paragraphs.
Really? I thought you disagreed with my stance that Giddens defensive game is flawed from a fundamentals perspective, that he has to work hard on it and that he's not ready to play NBA defence - you even said you believe his defence was NBA ready in spite of not watching him playing.
Nice to see you agreeing with my assessment now though.
And I think I spent most of my text in this thread simply stating that I'd rather take Danny's analysis over yours, and that the mental side of the game is an important aspect for every player. I never said that Giddens' defense wasn't flawed, I just believe that he has the physical ability to play with the Celtics right now and play reasonably effective one-on-one defense. However, I don't think his head is in the right place for him to do this if he gets jelly-legged when Doc puts him on the court.
-
Yes, I've watched the last 3 games.
I've written here that Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position.
No, rebounding ability isn't a skill as important for a guard as it is for a big man. Do you disagree? If not, what's exactly your point?
Good try. ;D Go back and read my post again, if you don't understand my point. (It's kind of obvious :-X). Otherwise, what is your point? Or the point of a "what's your point?" response. Also, rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man? Huh? Do you want to make any other obvious observations? Outside shooting is more important for a two guard than a center, therefore cordobes hates Mehmet Okur. ::)
Has anybody mentioned that Giddens passes the ball as well as any two guard out of this years' draft? Better than O.J. Mayo. Better than Courtney Lee. Also better than T.A. :-*
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
Thank you and TP. You managed to sum up in a sentence what I failed to explain in several paragraphs.
Really? I thought you disagreed with my stance that Giddens defensive game is flawed from a fundamentals perspective, that he has to work hard on it and that he's not ready to play NBA defence - you even said you believe his defence was NBA ready in spite of not watching him playing.
Nice to see you agreeing with my assessment now though.
And I think I spent most of my text in this thread simply stating that I'd rather take Danny's analysis over yours, and that the mental side of the game is an important aspect for every player. I never said that Giddens' defense wasn't flawed, I just believe that he has the physical ability to play with the Celtics right now and play reasonably effective one-on-one defense. However, I don't think his head is in the right place for him to do this if he gets jelly-legged when Doc puts him on the court.
[/quote]
I'm still struggling to understand why is Giddens head and his mental inability to deal with the NBA game causing him to attempt to block shots with the wrong hand or to stare at the ball when guarding cuts or to bite fakes by taking his eyes off the opponent belly during D-League games. It's really weird.
Anyway, you're surely entitled to have an opinion, but you either agree with what the flaws are or you actually believe that his defence is NBA ready from a fundamentals perspective.
And everybody agrees that the mental part of the game is very important.
-
Yes, I've watched the last 3 games.
I've written here that Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position.
No, rebounding ability isn't a skill as important for a guard as it is for a big man. Do you disagree? If not, what's exactly your point?
Good try. ;D Go back and read my post again, if you don't understand my point. (It's kind of obvious :-X). Otherwise, what is your point? Or the point of a "what's your point?" response. Also, rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man? Huh? Do you want to make any other obvious observations? Outside shooting is more important for a two guard than a center, therefore cordobes hates Mehmet Okur. ::)
Has anybody mentioned that Giddens passes the ball as well as any two guard out of this years' draft? Better than O.J. Mayo. Better than Courtney Lee. Also better than T.A. :-*
i think i've mentioned that at some point, but the average NBA fan is clueless about a player until they've played for 2 years in the league, or have started from the get go. Just becuase a kid isn't playing doesn't mean he sucks, it just means he needs to develop before they can count on him.
-
Yes, I've watched the last 3 games.
I've written here that Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position.
No, rebounding ability isn't a skill as important for a guard as it is for a big man. Do you disagree? If not, what's exactly your point?
Good try. ;D Go back and read my post again, if you don't understand my point. (It's kind of obvious :-X). Otherwise, what is your point? Or the point of a "what's your point?" response. Also, rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man? Huh? Do you want to make any other obvious observations? Outside shooting is more important for a two guard than a center, therefore cordobes hates Mehmet Okur. ::)
You're confusing things. I've said that his rebounding ability was a factor, a positive point for him and a "nice skill to have". I don't see it as a negative or as a completely immaterial factor.
I don't hate Giddens or Okur, why would I?
If it's obvious that rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man, what's exactly your disagreement with me? That's exactly what I've said. A good skill to have, just not as important as others.
Nice to see we actually agree, TP for a good debate.
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
but this is the problem with the debate, right?
you think that the debate is a "settled", whereas others disagree...
as we know, BFB scouts players and just a couple of pages ago asserted that while he agrees there are deficiencies in JRs game, he thinks he could contribute in a positive way at the NBA level. I tend to agree.
not saying for sure that he is right, but it's certainly not a settled topic.
JR can score, he's really good in transition, rebounds, has some nice defensive skills and is super athletic. It's certainly possible that with solid playing time this year he could have demonstrated the ability to play at this level.
I think Anthony Randolph is a good example of a raw player that, when given PT, showed the ability to contribute at the NBA level...
-
I'm still struggling to understand why is Giddens head and his mental inability to deal with the NBA game causing him to attempt to block shots with the wrong hand or to stare at the ball when guarding cuts or to bite fakes by taking his eyes off the opponent belly during D-League games. It's really weird.
Anyway, you're surely entitled to have an opinion, but you either agree with what the flaws are or you actually believe that his defence is NBA ready from a fundamentals perspective.
And everybody agrees that the mental part of the game is very important.
I'm talking about mental mistakes. No, maturity alone isn't going to correct his shotblocking mechanics or his ballwatching tendencies. But players whose minds aren't in the game make more mistakes. If you're thinking about the thousands of fans around you or the fact that you can't feel your legs and not about the man who'd like nothing better than to score in your face, then you're not going to play good defense.
Again. I believe that his defense would be passable, although flawed, in the NBA right now - there are many players in the league who demonstrate the defensive flaws you've mentioned. A player doesn't have to play fundamentally perfect defense to make a defensive impact on the game. At the same time, I don't believe that his mental focus is adequate at this point for him to play as well as he is capable of playing.
-
Yes, I've watched the last 3 games.
I've written here that Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position.
No, rebounding ability isn't a skill as important for a guard as it is for a big man. Do you disagree? If not, what's exactly your point?
Good try. ;D Go back and read my post again, if you don't understand my point. (It's kind of obvious :-X). Otherwise, what is your point? Or the point of a "what's your point?" response. Also, rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man? Huh? Do you want to make any other obvious observations? Outside shooting is more important for a two guard than a center, therefore cordobes hates Mehmet Okur. ::)
You're confusing things. I've said that his rebounding ability was a factor, a positive point for him and a "nice skill to have". I don't see it as a negative or as a completely immaterial factor.
I don't hate Giddens or Okur, why would I?
If it's obvious that rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man, what's exactly your disagreement with me? That's exactly what I've said. A good skill to have, just not as important as others.
Nice to see we actually agree, TP for a good debate.
why does rebounding have to be as important a skill for a guard as a big man?
they were just talking about how CHI has to keep Rondo off the boards....when a guard rebounds well, it has a positive impact...
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
but this is the problem with the debate, right?
you think that the debate is a "settled", whereas others disagree...
as we know, BFB scouts players and just a couple of pages ago asserted that while he agrees there are deficiencies in JRs game, he thinks he could contribute in a positive way at the NBA level. I tend to agree.
not saying for sure that he is right, but it's certainly not a settled topic.
JR can score, he's really good in transition, rebounds, has some nice defensive skills and is super athletic. It's certainly possible that with solid playing time this year he could have demonstrated the ability to play at this level.
I think Anthony Randolph is a good example of a raw player that, when given PT, showed the ability to contribute at the NBA level...
Contribute like Courtney Lee, Bill Walker or DeMarcus Nelson?
-
You're confusing things. I've said that his rebounding ability was a factor, a positive point for him and a "nice skill to have". I don't see it as a negative or as a completely immaterial factor.
I don't hate Giddens or Okur, why would I?
If it's obvious that rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man, what's exactly your disagreement with me? That's exactly what I've said. A good skill to have, just not as important as others.
Nice to see we actually agree, TP for a good debate.
Glad you were willing to admit you were wrong regarding Rondo and Gidden's and both players ability to impact the game with their rebounding. Assuming that's what you are doing now? (No wonder I'm a little confused. Ha ha!) Although your not "completely immaterial" line still strikes me as [dang]ing with faint praise. Right? Unless I am missing your point or you don't really have one with that line? Would you elaborate more, please?
Obviously you don't hate Okur. JK.
-
why does rebounding have to be as important a skill for a guard as a big man?
It doesn't and I've never said so. I don't have the time and the patience to keep answering to strawman arguments.
-
why does rebounding have to be as important a skill for a guard as a big man?
It doesn't and I've never said so. I don't have the time and the patience to keep answering to strawman arguments.
so why did you make the point that rebounding is not as important for a guard as a big man?
-
You're confusing things. I've said that his rebounding ability was a factor, a positive point for him and a "nice skill to have". I don't see it as a negative or as a completely immaterial factor.
I don't hate Giddens or Okur, why would I?
If it's obvious that rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man, what's exactly your disagreement with me? That's exactly what I've said. A good skill to have, just not as important as others.
Nice to see we actually agree, TP for a good debate.
Glad you were willing to admit you were wrong regarding Rondo and Gidden's and both players ability to impact the game with their rebounding. Assuming that's what you are doing now? (No wonder I'm a little confused. Ha ha!) Although your not "completely immaterial" line still strikes me as [dang]ing with faint praise. Right? Unless I am missing your point or you don't really have one with that line? Would you elaborate more, please?
I was wrong?
I've said 2 things about this issue:
1 - Giddens is an excellent rebounder for his position, that's a nice skill to have and worthy of note (that's why I stressed it in the OP). You seem to agree.
2 - Rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man. You labelled this observation (originally made by Budweiser Celtic) as obvious (and it is), so I guess you also agree with it.
So, where exactly was/am I wrong?
-
why does rebounding have to be as important a skill for a guard as a big man?
It doesn't and I've never said so. I don't have the time and the patience to keep answering to strawman arguments.
so why did you make the point that rebounding is not as important for a guard as a big man?
Let's see..... because it isn't? Can it be? I just said, and I quote myself "Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF". Some guy thought I was saying Giddens plays at the 4 and Budweiser Celtic explained "That's not what he meant. He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor." Clarified?
Now, may I ask you a question? Why have you suggested I said that rebounding has to be such as important of a skill for a guard as a big man?
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
but this is the problem with the debate, right?
you think that the debate is a "settled", whereas others disagree...
as we know, BFB scouts players and just a couple of pages ago asserted that while he agrees there are deficiencies in JRs game, he thinks he could contribute in a positive way at the NBA level. I tend to agree.
not saying for sure that he is right, but it's certainly not a settled topic.
JR can score, he's really good in transition, rebounds, has some nice defensive skills and is super athletic. It's certainly possible that with solid playing time this year he could have demonstrated the ability to play at this level.
I think Anthony Randolph is a good example of a raw player that, when given PT, showed the ability to contribute at the NBA level...
Contribute like Courtney Lee, Bill Walker or DeMarcus Nelson?
why are those the choices? what about Randolph or Batum?
I could definitely see JR putting up some nice stats on GS with their transition game...also could see Walker doing the same out there.
-
why does rebounding have to be as important a skill for a guard as a big man?
It doesn't and I've never said so. I don't have the time and the patience to keep answering to strawman arguments.
so why did you make the point that rebounding is not as important for a guard as a big man?
Let's see..... because it isn't? Can it be? I just said, and I quote myself "Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF". Some guy thought I was saying Giddens plays at the 4 and Budweiser Celtic explained "That's not what he meant. He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor." Clarified?
Now, may I ask you a question? Why have you suggested I said that rebounding has to be such as important of a skill for a guard as a big man?
because that's what it implies when you say "it's not something he can rely on...as he was a PF"
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
remember, we are asking the question: could JR contribute at the NBA level?
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
Funny thing is that I've always liked Giddens more than most and my post was generally complimentary of him. However, the homerism in this boards is just too much. Everything less than "oh, he's just as good as Orlando starting SG, he just didn't have the chance to prove it because our bench is so superior to the Magic's one..." is considered hate. It's truly mind-boggling.
-
Rebounding isn't as important a skill for a guard as a big man. You labelled this observation (originally made by Budweiser Celtic) as obvious (and it is), so I guess you also agree with it.
You have a lot of responses in this thread, so maybe you're tripping yourself up a little/losing track of what you've said? I'm referring to this:
Yeah, of course the rebounding prowess is a positive for him, but it's not like it's something he can rely on, as he was a PF.
Which wasn't BudweiserCeltics' observation, was it? He was just helping you to clarify. (We all make typos.)
That's not what he meant. He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
-
So, The Walker Wiggle, once again, and for the last time, do you have any disagreement with anything I've said?
I repeat my advise to you from 10 pages ago: if you want to talk about me, not Giddens, open another thread.
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
but that's not the only thing he does well.....he's really good in transition, for instance.
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Monta?
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
but that's not the only thing he does well.....he's really good in transition, for instance.
Yeah, I wrote that in the open post. Do you really have a problem with this statement:
He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.?
Do you disagree with it?
-
Funny thing is that I've always liked Giddens more than most and my post was generally complimentary of him. However, the homerism in this boards is just too much. Everything less than "oh, he's just as good as Orlando starting SG, he just didn't have the chance to prove it because our bench is so superior to the Magic's one..." is considered hate. It's truly mind-boggling.
I don't think anyone considers your opinion of Giddens hateful or even unreasonable. For one - I certainly don't. I do think that your tone, which has swung to extremes, has confused the issue a lot.
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Maggette?
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
but that's not the only thing he does well.....he's really good in transition, for instance.
Yeah, I wrote that in the open post. Do you really have a problem with this statement:
He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.?
Do you disagree with it?
no, but again, I don't see why it needs to be as big a factor....
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Monta?
Better shooter (besides a much better player). Monta shot 34% from distance in his rookie season in the NBA; Giddens is shooting 28% in his rookie season in the D-League.
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
but that's not the only thing he does well.....he's really good in transition, for instance.
Yeah, I wrote that in the open post. Do you really have a problem with this statement:
He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.?
Do you disagree with it?
no, but again, I don't see why it needs to be as big a factor....
Me neither. That's why I said it wasn't a big factor. What's the problem you have then?
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Monta?
Better shooter (besides a much better player). Monta shot 34% from distance in his rookie season in the NBA; Giddens is shooting 28% in his rookie season in the D-League.
you asked the question, I'm just trying to answer it. I could see JR getting a lot of buckets in transition....just like many of their wings do...
Randolph has a very unrefined game and scored a bunch for them.
-
So, The Walker Wiggle, once again, and for the last time, do you have any disagreement with anything I've said?
I repeat my advise to you from 10 pages ago: if you want to talk about me, not Giddens, open another thread.
What? Hey, not my intention, it just seemed that you were confused by which comments I was referring to - which weren't BudweiserCeltics. So, ok?
Also, posted my last response before seeing yours... Oops.
EDIT - To clarify? Though not really sure if that's what you're asking? :P I believe a guard can impact games with great rebounding. Rondo is doing it right now... Giddens has the ability to do the same. Agree/disagree?
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Monta?
Better shooter (besides a much better player). Monta shot 34% from distance in his rookie season in the NBA; Giddens is shooting 28% in his rookie season in the D-League.
you asked the question, I'm just trying to answer it. I could see JR getting a lot of buckets in transition....just like many of their wings do...
Randolph has a very unrefined game and scored a bunch for them.
Randolph is not a guard. Randolph is 6'10''.
-
why would he have to rely on it (ie be as important for guard as a big man) for it to be something he could do well at the NBA level?
Huh? Because he needs to do other things at a high level besides rebounding in order to play in the NBA. His rebounding and energy alone won't make him a NBA player. On the other hand, it may be enough for a big man. What's so hard to understand about this?
but that's not the only thing he does well.....he's really good in transition, for instance.
Yeah, I wrote that in the open post. Do you really have a problem with this statement:
He's saying that his rebounding skills would be something to rely on if he were a PF, but since he is a guard, it won't as big of a factor.?
Do you disagree with it?
no, but again, I don't see why it needs to be as big a factor....
Me neither. That's why I said it wasn't a big factor. What's the problem you have then?
okay, I'm just gonna back up because we are not on the same track here.
to restate, JR is a really good rebounder and could contribute that aspect of his game at the NBA level.
-
to restate, JR is a really good rebounder and could contribute that aspect of his game at the NBA level.
Yeps, I said that in the 1st post in this thread.
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
how about Monta?
Better shooter (besides a much better player). Monta shot 34% from distance in his rookie season in the NBA; Giddens is shooting 28% in his rookie season in the D-League.
you asked the question, I'm just trying to answer it. I could see JR getting a lot of buckets in transition....just like many of their wings do...
Randolph has a very unrefined game and scored a bunch for them.
Randolph is not a guard. Randolph is 6'10''.
i'm pointing him out because he scores in transition because of his athleticism, something i could see JR doing out there.
-
to restate, JR is a really good rebounder and could contribute that aspect of his game at the NBA level.
Yeps, I said that in the 1st post in this thread.
great. now add that to other things does well, and you can see some people think he could contribute at the NBA level.
-
EDIT - To clarify? Though not really sure if that's what you're asking? :P I believe a guard can impact games with great rebounding. Rondo is doing it right now... Giddens has the ability to do the same. Agree/disagree?
I agree - that's why I labelled his rebounding ability as "amazing" and an asset. I'm not sure if he's going to rebound at Rondo's level, but that's a minor detail. Are we done? Everything clarified? Any additional doubt you may have?
-
i'm pointing him out because he scores in transition because of his athleticism, something i could see JR doing out there.
And thousands of other guys.
great. now add that to other things does well, and you can see some people think he could contribute at the NBA level.
I had this conversation before and I won't have it again. To sum it up: the same can be said about thousands of players.
A few posts ago (1293 or so), you said one can't compare Courtney Lee with Rose. However, you seem to have no problem comparing Giddens to Lee. I find this puzzling. IMO, Lee is a much better player than Giddens - the gap between them being larger than the one between Lee and Rose (just in terms of their current level, not upside).
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
-
I agree - that's why I labelled his rebounding ability as "amazing" and an asset. I'm not sure if he's going to rebound at Rondo's level, but that's a minor detail. Are we done? Everything clarified? Any additional doubt you may have?
Nah, although you can avoid a lot of wheel spinning if you make more of an effort to be clearer next time. The whole "not a PF line" was really a big mistake. Clearly I wasn't the only one that took it as dismissive... Anyway, it's nice to agree, wouldn't you agree? Ha!
-
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
okay, he's a better rebounder and he is not undersized for his position.
-
Nah, although you can avoid a lot of wheel spinning if you make more of an effort to be clearer next time. The whole "not a PF line" was really a big mistake. Clearly I wasn't the only one that took it as dismissive... Anyway, it's nice to agree, wouldn't you agree?
I'm sorry, English isn't my primary language and I'm prone to commit grammar mistakes. That's why I thanked BC for the clarification - as he immediately understood what I meant - and apologized for my clumsy grammar right after using the expression.
I thought that BC clarification was enough, but I guess I was wrong. My apologies once again.
-
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
okay, he's a better rebounder and he is not undersized for his position.
On the other hand, he can't shoot nearly as well, he's not as good defensively and his handling is far worse.
Rebounding and size make up for all of this?
-
I thought that BC clarification was enough, but I guess I was wrong. My apologies once again.
No apologies necessary. And I wasn't concerned with the typo. You probably make fewer typos than I do. I simply mean the entire "Giddens isn't a PF or it would be different" line of thinking, which it seems you have reconsidered. Though I don't blame you, Rondo has been hard to deny.
-
On the other hand, he can't shoot nearly as well, he's not as good defensively and his handling is far worse.
Rebounding and size make up for all of this?
Conversely, he still passes the ball better, which is going to be a problem for Nelson...
-
I thought that BC clarification was enough, but I guess I was wrong. My apologies once again.
No apologies necessary. And I wasn't concerned with the typo. You probably make fewer typos than I do. I simply mean the entire "Giddens isn't a PF or it would be different" line of thinking, which it seems you have reconsidered. Though I don't blame you, Rondo has been hard to deny.
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF. If this sounded dismissive, it was due to my poor english and I apologize for that.
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
-
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
okay, he's a better rebounder and he is not undersized for his position.
On the other hand, he can't shoot nearly as well, he's not as good defensively and his handling is far worse.
Rebounding and size make up for all of this?
well first of all, I don't agree about defense... especially guarding SGs (which is where he would have to play).
plus, JR has a long wingspan. and has decent form on his shot. he's also got pretty good hands and could crash the offensive glass much the way TA did as a rookie.
but yes, all in all, i do think that makes him a better NBA prospect than Nelson. quite a bit better.
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
I'm not splitting hairs, just correcting your stance that I reconsidered my position. Case closed now.
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
I'm not splitting hairs, just correcting your stance that I reconsidered my position. Case closed now.
but again, what is the relevance of comparing the relative importance of rebounding between PF and SG in terms of the question: can JR contribute at the NBA level?
-
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
okay, he's a better rebounder and he is not undersized for his position.
On the other hand, he can't shoot nearly as well, he's not as good defensively and his handling is far worse.
Rebounding and size make up for all of this?
well first of all, I don't agree about defense... especially guarding SGs (which is where he would have to play).
plus, JR has a long wingspan. and has decent form on his shot. he's also got pretty good hands and could crash the offensive glass much the way TA did as a rookie.
but yes, all in all, i do think that makes him a better NBA prospect than Nelson. quite a bit better.
In terms of potential, I agree.
In terms of current quality, I don't. Nelson defends better - he's really, really good - and he's big and strong enough to defend SGs, very long with an incredible wingspan. Right now, Nelson is the better player (especially to play the NBA game).
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
I'm not splitting hairs, just correcting your stance that I reconsidered my position. Case closed now.
but again, what is the relevance of comparing the relative importance of rebounding between PF and SG in terms of the question: can JR contribute at the NBA level?
Maybe you should look for the context where I made the original statement, if this is really so important to you.
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
I'm not splitting hairs, just correcting your stance that I reconsidered my position. Case closed now.
Wait, a judge has just re-opened the case...
EDIT - Nevermind, the case stays closed. Thanks winsomme & Budweiser Celtic.
-
Still - Any comment on J.R.'s passing vs. Nelson's? His assist numbers in college and the D-League seem awfully promising to me.
-
after doing some rereading, see next post...
-
I didn't reconsider anything. I meant exactly what BC later clarified: rebounding for a guard isn't such a big factor as it is for a PF.
But regardless, Giddens has the ability to make a big impact on a game with his rebounding. Right? Why split hairs at this point?
I'm not splitting hairs, just correcting your stance that I reconsidered my position. Case closed now.
but again, what is the relevance of comparing the relative importance of rebounding between PF and SG in terms of the question: can JR contribute at the NBA level?
Maybe you should look for the context where I made the original statement, if this is really so important to you.
okay, after a quick recheck, it looks like it was the point that you made more recently that JR couldn't hang his hat on rebounding, but you also agree that he has other skills, so...
-
His simply saying, that if you have to appoint some value to the different skills a player might have, when it regards a guard, rebounding is not as important as other skills. So that Giddens can be an excellent rebounder, he doesn't feel that the other skills are good enough so that Giddens can rebound well is not much of a factor as it regards his NBA readyness.
This differs from from a center or powerfoward in that if they're great rebounders, usually that's a huge factor into their NBA readyness development.
I agree with this premise, but I don't agree with his conclusions.
-
His simply saying, that if you have to appoint some value to the different skills a player might have, when it regards a guard, rebounding is not as important as other skills. So that Giddens can be an excellent rebounder, he doesn't feel that the other skills are good enough so that Giddens can rebound well is not much of a factor as it regards his NBA readyness.
This differs from from a center or powerfoward in that if they're great rebounders, usually that's a huge factor into their NBA readyness development.
I agree with this premise, but I don't agree with his conclusions.
yeah, and we already went over this a couple of pages ago....I'm not sure who was arguing that rebounding is as important for a SG as it is for a PF...just listing it as something he could contribute right away in the big league.
plus, c already acknowledges other skills that JR has....
so i guess what i don't understand is not why c doesn't agree that JR is NBA ready, but why the question about readiness isn't an open one with points on both sides of the debate.
-
I think Giddens has some potential and can be a NBA role-player in due time, but right now, I don't see a great separation between him and, say, DeMarcus Nelson. If there is, I'd like to know what makes Giddens so much better. Unfortunately, I think I'd have to wait forever.
okay, he's a better rebounder and he is not undersized for his position.
On the other hand, he can't shoot nearly as well, he's not as good defensively and his handling is far worse.
Rebounding and size make up for all of this?
well first of all, I don't agree about defense... especially guarding SGs (which is where he would have to play).
plus, JR has a long wingspan. and has decent form on his shot. he's also got pretty good hands and could crash the offensive glass much the way TA did as a rookie.
but yes, all in all, i do think that makes him a better NBA prospect than Nelson. quite a bit better.
In terms of potential, I agree.
In terms of current quality, I don't. Nelson defends better - he's really, really good - and he's big and strong enough to defend SGs, very long with an incredible wingspan. Right now, Nelson is the better player (especially to play the NBA game).
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
Because he would be an offensive liability (finishing on transition and some cuts to the basket are nice but you need more from a perimeter player in the NBA, especially one who can't shoot or make FTs) and his defence lacks a good amount of polishing to be a factor.
I mean, maybe he's as ready as Bill Walker. But would you consider Bill Walker NBA ready?
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
Because he would be an offensive liability (finishing on transition and some cuts to the basket are nice but you need more from a perimeter player in the NBA, especially one who can't shoot or make FTs) and his defence lacks a good amount of polishing to be a factor.
I mean, maybe he's as ready as Bill Walker. But would you consider Bill Walker NBA ready?
but how do you know what his learning curve would be?
like i said, i'm adding the things that he does well to his potential to get better at others...
I mean, Walker doesn't embarrass himself out there, but he's just not getting minutes to really show what he can do or get better at the things he is less good at...but is he able to play at the NBA level? yeah, i think he is....and i think he would have gotten PT on other teams...
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
but sometimes it does happen playing at the NBA level. for instance, getting playing time for the Cs would focus his game more than playing in the NBDL where he is more wide open with his game.
what they would probably have done is give him things to do in games that he is good at (like rebounding and getting up quickly in the transition game) and then in practice worked him really hard on his outside shooting (like they've been doing with Baby and Rondo).
so he'd be contributing and honing at the same time. also he'd getting ahead in his learning of the defensive system that we use.
I know you don't agree that these things would happen, but i don't see how you think it is completely unreasonable to think that they could have...
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
i think you just nailed it on the head, he needs to know what kind of player he's trying to be. and i'll take it further, the Celtics want to see him play down there before THEY decide what kindof player he should be. becuase on any given night he's shown excellent passing, shooting, rebounding, defensive skills. but he's not going to be out there in green trying to do it all, so where can he focus his short minutes and have the most affect?
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
i think you just nailed it on the head, he needs to know what kind of player he's trying to be. and i'll take it further, the Celtics want to see him play down there before THEY decide what kindof player he should be. becuase on any given night he's shown excellent passing, shooting, rebounding, defensive skills. but he's not going to be out there in green trying to do it all, so where can he focus his short minutes and have the most affect?
here's the problem, though...
the question isn't should he have played NBA minutes this season. it's COULD he have played NBA minutes this year....
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
i think you just nailed it on the head, he needs to know what kind of player he's trying to be. and i'll take it further, the Celtics want to see him play down there before THEY decide what kindof player he should be. becuase on any given night he's shown excellent passing, shooting, rebounding, defensive skills. but he's not going to be out there in green trying to do it all, so where can he focus his short minutes and have the most affect?
here's the problem, though...
the question isn't should he have played NBA minutes this season. it's COULD he have played NBA minutes this year....
Ah, all right. But in that case, there are hundreds of basketball players who could have played NBA minutes this year. I'd say that about 1/3 of the D-Leaguers wouldn't look worse than Walker in a NBA game.
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
i think you just nailed it on the head, he needs to know what kind of player he's trying to be. and i'll take it further, the Celtics want to see him play down there before THEY decide what kindof player he should be. becuase on any given night he's shown excellent passing, shooting, rebounding, defensive skills. but he's not going to be out there in green trying to do it all, so where can he focus his short minutes and have the most affect?
here's the problem, though...
the question isn't should he have played NBA minutes this season. it's COULD he have played NBA minutes this year....
Ah, all right. But in that case, there are hundreds of basketball players who could have played NBA minutes this year. I'd say that about 1/3 of the D-Leaguers wouldn't look worse than Walker in a NBA game.
I disagree with your numbers of how many wouldn't look worse, but more importantly, even if those number were accurate to start with, I think the raw skills and potential JR has would put the distance between him and the rest of the field as the season and PT commenced and JR improved...
-
again, like you said, all players have flaws. the debate is whether those flaws mean that he is not NBA ready or able to contribute at the NBA level, not whether or not people disagree with what the flaws are...
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
A wing player who can't dribble or shoot, has bad-decision making skills and is a willing but flawed defender? Which current NBA player with a similar skill-level and quality to Giddens is actually able to contribute at the NBA level? I mean there are always guys like DeMarcus Nelson and similar scrubs. Giddens is at their level.
but this is the problem with the debate, right?
you think that the debate is a "settled", whereas others disagree...
as we know, BFB scouts players and just a couple of pages ago asserted that while he agrees there are deficiencies in JRs game, he thinks he could contribute in a positive way at the NBA level. I tend to agree.
not saying for sure that he is right, but it's certainly not a settled topic.
JR can score, he's really good in transition, rebounds, has some nice defensive skills and is super athletic. It's certainly possible that with solid playing time this year he could have demonstrated the ability to play at this level.
I think Anthony Randolph is a good example of a raw player that, when given PT, showed the ability to contribute at the NBA level...
Contribute like Courtney Lee, Bill Walker or DeMarcus Nelson?
Courtney Lee did not contribute as much earlier in the season until Mickael Pietrus who was the starting guard got injured and when Lee first begun starting he was a disaster area. His mental approach, confidence and overall game grew as a result of more time and experience. Not to mention there are no HOF swingment to battle for minutes in Orlando.
Mbah a Moute gets burn on a bad Milwaukee team. He's a decent player who while showing he was likely going to be the best wing defender on that Milwaukee team that was more of an indictment of Milwaukee's roster than real praise for a 2nd rnd pick.
As for Bill Walker, I'm not sure how you cite what he's done thus far as a "contribution". Walker outside of a few highlight-reel dunks has been galactically bad. Missing rotations, turning the ball over, and fouling seemingly at a rate that makes Mikki Moore look good. But again, with experience I think Walker can prove to be a fine player.
Giddens really isn't any different. It's true that not every player benefits from simply being thrown out on the court but JR has enough strengths in his game to make you believe that He could handle small spurts of solid play and eventually become much like BBD has, a player that has earned consistent minutes and produce. In fact playing with the starters has completely sped up the learning curve for Baby.
After next year House could be gone, TA will likely be gone(if not sooner) and Ray Allen might not be resigned or if so possibly to a backup role. Giddens is DEFINITELY gonna get his chance to show that he belongs here before then. IMO there's no way this kid doesn't make it. He has too much going in his favor
-
As for Bill Walker, I'm not sure how you cite what he's done thus far as a "contribution". Walker outside of a few highlight-reel dunks has been galactically bad. Missing rotations, turning the ball over, and fouling seemingly at a rate that makes Mikki Moore look good.
That's precisely why I cited him.
-
who is Giddens?
-
I disagree with your numbers of how many wouldn't look worse, but more importantly, even if those number were accurate to start with, I think the raw skills and potential JR has would put the distance between him and the rest of the field as the season and PT commenced and JR improved...
Okay, you liked what Walker showed more than I did. Anyway, I just want to note that the "potential" and "he'd improve" talk is another whole different issue.
The argument was about how Giddens would contribute with his current skill-set.
-
I disagree with your numbers of how many wouldn't look worse, but more importantly, even if those number were accurate to start with, I think the raw skills and potential JR has would put the distance between him and the rest of the field as the season and PT commenced and JR improved...
Okay, you liked what Walker showed more than I did. Anyway, I just want to note that the "potential" and "he'd improve" talk is another whole different issue.
The argument was about how Giddens would contribute with his current skill-set.
okay, that's fair, but even Lee didn't contribute very much early on in the season...
-
my "futurecast" isn't working, is anyone else having problems?
-
As for Bill Walker, I'm not sure how you cite what he's done thus far as a "contribution". Walker outside of a few highlight-reel dunks has been galactically bad. Missing rotations, turning the ball over, and fouling seemingly at a rate that makes Mikki Moore look good.
That's precisely why I cited him.
And I agree with that. However, I think Walker's game is far more raw than Giddens. Right now Walker contributes raw size at the 3. JR's game is far more versatile even in the places it needs refinement. On our team, experience is a HUGE factor in playing time unless Doc's hand is forced by injury. If Pollard wasn't injured all of last year guaranteed we wouldn't have even seen Davis last year, and not much of Powe at all. And after Brown was added despite his ineffectiveness he played. You don't seem to see it for some reason but context plays a HUGE role in what Courtney Lee is doing right now compared to what JR is doing. Courtney's offensive game is good now but JR's game is more versatile and defensively he projects to be much better. Unfortunately I have to use the word "projects" because Doc didn't want to give the kid the chance to learn on the fly in the regular season like Van Gundy did with Lee.
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
Because he would be an offensive liability (finishing on transition and some cuts to the basket are nice but you need more from a perimeter player in the NBA, especially one who can't shoot or make FTs) and his defence lacks a good amount of polishing to be a factor.
I mean, maybe he's as ready as Bill Walker. But would you consider Bill Walker NBA ready?
You just described Rajon Rondo in his rookie year.
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
Because he would be an offensive liability (finishing on transition and some cuts to the basket are nice but you need more from a perimeter player in the NBA, especially one who can't shoot or make FTs) and his defence lacks a good amount of polishing to be a factor.
I mean, maybe he's as ready as Bill Walker. But would you consider Bill Walker NBA ready?
You just described Rajon Rondo in his rookie year.
Except that Giddens is a terrible on-the-ball guard and Rondo wasn't. Besides that, Rondo's defence as a rookie was much better than Giddens'.
-
You don't seem to see it for some reason but context plays a HUGE role in what Courtney Lee is doing right now compared to what JR is doing.
Oh, I see that. You can find quotes from me saying that the fate of a large part of the rookies depends more on the situation they land in, the context, than on what they can control.
On the other hand, I also understand that some players are better than others. Especially from a fundamentals perspective - some guys can execute flawlessly, others have yet to be taught.
Gidddens has a more versatile offensive game? Why? Because he can't do anything at a very high level? And Giddens projects to be a much better defender than Lee? How exactly do you rate Lee's defence?
-
Walker is more ready than Giddens, and even if you consider them equal Walker is automatically better anyways becuase his FT shooting and he's younger.
-
Rondo's defense in his rookie year was on a 20 win team, mistakes didn't matter, he had no expectations. Rookie giddens could be twice as good defensively as rookie Rondo and it still wouldn't be good enough to play on this team.
-
this is point is basically the crux of my problem with this topic.
I find extremely difficult to believe any reasonable observer would simultaneously agree with the flaws I've described on Giddens game and that he's ready to play in the NBA.
add together the things that JR does well with things that he could potentially get good at with PT and i don't see (even if you disagree with the conclusion) how you can argue that you have to be an unreasonable observer to maintain that JR could contribute at the NBA level.
reasonable people disagree all the time. you don't have to be right to be reasonable... especially on something that is speculative.
Because he would be an offensive liability (finishing on transition and some cuts to the basket are nice but you need more from a perimeter player in the NBA, especially one who can't shoot or make FTs) and his defence lacks a good amount of polishing to be a factor.
I mean, maybe he's as ready as Bill Walker. But would you consider Bill Walker NBA ready?
You just described Rajon Rondo in his rookie year.
Except that Giddens is a terrible on-the-ball guard and Rondo wasn't. Besides that, Rondo's defence as a rookie was much better than Giddens'.
You're misremembering. Rajon was/is a gambler who know understands team defense better than he did his rookie season, though rookie PGs still light him up when he reaches.
-
Walker is more ready than Giddens, and even if you consider them equal Walker is automatically better anyways becuase his FT shooting and he's younger.
I don't understand this statement at all. This screams of I love Walker's vicious dunks more.
-
I love Walker's vicious dunks.
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
I can see that perspective - but you also have to understand that some people are very good at learning by studying film and having things explained to them while others are more adept at learning by doing.
I think Giddens is someone who needs to make mistakes in action and have them corrected, which is why TC and pre-season will be big for him.
I don't think this team could afford to teach him like that, but I do believe on a lesser team such as Memphis he would have grown alot by being a part of the mix, having reviews of his on-court performance with the coaching staff, and going through practices with a defined role.
The D-League has allowed him to play a role comparable to his college role - he needs extended time being pushed into his projected NBA role IMO - the role you are talking about.
Not everyone is cut out to just watch and learn and JR is a very hyper, hands-on type person. It is probably much easier for him to learn by trial and error.
Whether or not the team can afford to do this is another thing, but if JR is smart he'll stay at the Waltham facility all summer and play pick-up games with high-level NBA types so he can grow.
This off-season and upcoming TC/pre will be very important for his long-term future.
-
okay, but how quickly that potential could be tapped into is part of the debate here.
speaking for myself, I think with playing time this year, he could have already demonstrated that potential at the NBA level.
Why?
I don't. I think he needs a coaching camp way more than playing time. But first of all he needs to know what type of player he's trying to be. If it's the kind of player I think he should be, then he needs to develop his shooting and defensive fundamentals - and competing in NBA games wouldn't help him a lot there.
I can see that perspective - but you also have to understand that some people are very good at learning by studying film and having things explained to them while others are more adept at learning by doing.
I think Giddens is someone who needs to make mistakes in action and have them corrected, which is why TC and pre-season will be big for him.
I don't think this team could afford to teach him like that, but I do believe on a lesser team such as Memphis he would have grown alot by being a part of the mix, having reviews of his on-court performance with the coaching staff, and going through practices with a defined role.
The D-League has allowed him to play a role comparable to his college role - he needs extended time being pushed into his projected NBA role IMO - the role you are talking about.
Not everyone is cut out to just watch and learn and JR is a very hyper, hands-on type person. It is probably much easier for him to learn by trial and error.
Whether or not the team can afford to do this is another thing, but if JR is smart he'll stay at the Waltham facility all summer and play pick-up games with high-level NBA types so he can grow.
This off-season and upcoming TC/pre will be very important for his long-term future.
TP. I 100% agree.
-
Even Michael Jordan was flawed. What's your point?
my point is that Giddens is also good but flawed....but didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate and build on on his game in the way that Lee and Mbah did.
There are thousands of players who are good but flawed. What exactly separates Giddens from them?
What I'm saying is that Courtney Lee is a much better player than Giddens - one is ready to be a solid NBA role-player, the other has to improve in order to reach that level. That shouldn't be a surprise. Btw, about how many starters from playoff teams you believe that they wouldn't get decent minutes if they were in the Boston roster ? There are 75 guys or so in those conditions.
I disagree very strongly with the theory that getting playing time is always good for the development of a player. Each case is a case. Some players can benefit from not playing at a higher level.
I guess the question is "how settled" the debate is over the "readiness" of Giddens...
your position seems to be that it is completely settled because if he were ready, he would have played.
Completely wrong. Read my posts.
I say he isn't ready because I watch him playing - and I've detailed the flaws I see in his game. He didn't play much because he isn't ready.
So far the only argument in favour of the thesis that he's ready is "Ainge said he was NBA ready defensively".
I mean, you brought up Charlie Bell and Pietrus. are you suggesting that the fact they didn't play much means that they aren't able to contribute at the NBA level?
Huh? But they are contributing at the NBA level: they both averaged 25 mpg and started more than 20 games for their teams.
No, the things you pointed out are accurate, but the level to which they balance out against his strengths is your opinion - you keep stating the existence of those flaws as "proof" he is not ready to play NBA minutes period, but that is a massive jump in speculation.
Giddens is not Lee or Mbah Moute - but there are plenty of examples of players who appeared less polished but had great physical tools and figured it out on the fly when put on teams that afforded them the ability to work through errors.
This debate comes down to opinion, not fact. Giddens has plus physical attributes and some solid performance ability in certain areas of his game. Would he be inconsistent? Certainly - but I believe he does enough things well on an NBA court to keep himself on an NBA court in the right situation and grow into a more defined role that accentuates his strengths.
He has a long way to go, but if he had been on the Clippers or Memphis for instance, I believe he would be further along as a player now by learning on the job - the down side to that is sometimes playing through errors prolongs some of the negative habits as well.
Overall though, I think Giddens would be held in higher regard as a prospect if he had been on an NBA court all year somewhere...you disagree, but its your opinion, not fact.
-
I'm still struggling to understand why is Giddens head and his mental inability to deal with the NBA game causing him to attempt to block shots with the wrong hand or to stare at the ball when guarding cuts or to bite fakes by taking his eyes off the opponent belly during D-League games. It's really weird.
Anyway, you're surely entitled to have an opinion, but you either agree with what the flaws are or you actually believe that his defence is NBA ready from a fundamentals perspective.
And everybody agrees that the mental part of the game is very important.
I'm talking about mental mistakes. No, maturity alone isn't going to correct his shotblocking mechanics or his ballwatching tendencies. But players whose minds aren't in the game make more mistakes. If you're thinking about the thousands of fans around you or the fact that you can't feel your legs and not about the man who'd like nothing better than to score in your face, then you're not going to play good defense.
Again. I believe that his defense would be passable, although flawed, in the NBA right now - there are many players in the league who demonstrate the defensive flaws you've mentioned. A player doesn't have to play fundamentally perfect defense to make a defensive impact on the game. At the same time, I don't believe that his mental focus is adequate at this point for him to play as well as he is capable of playing.
As an extension of that - Cordobes, you keep pointing to the errors he makes fundamentally, but nothing in regards to the volume of those erroneous plays relative to the quality plays he makes in the same situations.
You've watched as much D-League footage as anyone if its been 6-7 games, we're all fairly limited to the same sample size. Don't know how much you watched him last year in NM, but I'll assume you did a bit as well.
But within those sample of games he is making all these fundemental errors, he's also made a good many off and on-ball defensive plays as well as making some very good offensive reads playmaking for himself and others.
Now the ratio may not be acceptable by your standards for getting on an NBA court, but the fact that he does make positive plays in his weaker fundamental areas is exactly what makes me believe that getting in an NBA system and having a clear-cut role established for him would enable to increase the ratio of good plays to bad - this is fairly common in player development with all players who are open to coaching and put the time in to improve on their weaknesses.
JR also has a few solid off/def tendencies that would be IDed on an NBA level and applied to his tutelage/usage in an NBA system.
-down screens for FT line extended catch-and-shoot/one-dribble, slash
- off-ball cuts and put-backs
- set 3-point shooting on kick-outs
He needs a lot of time but is substantially better than his 28% overall percentage with feet set and time to shoot - 35% is not adequate for it being a primary shot, but combined with his mid-range catch-and-shoot/slash game it is a decent complementary option to supplement.
He isn't a good enough ball-handler to run pick-and-role with or to put in ISO and I don't expect him to ever be - but shot-fakes on set shots even out to 3-point range, where he can get by a recovering primary defender, put him in space and he is good at getting to the basket or reading the double and finding the open man - he forces some lower percentage passes sometimes, but he makes some very, very good reads at others.
Defensively, he is a capable man defender at times, but does not pay attention to opponents strengths and definitely gets caught daydreaming enough to cause him problems - the focus issues are going to be a major obstacle for him, but as he learns his opponents tendencies he should improve tremendously by simply denying their primary drive side, eliminating separation spacing for shooters, and using his length to challenge pull ups or soft drives that he can shadow.
Off-ball he is great at picking up steals, ala Larry Hughes back in the day - doesn't make him a good defender as he has to know when to range off his assignment or risk getting burned - but its a good thing to have this anticipation ability. He needs to learn when to do it.
When I look at everything he does well and everything he does not do well, most of his flaws in terms of judgement can be improved by being coached to play a certain way in order to fit his skills into a specific role.
Boston had JR's role filled by Tony Allen - someone who is light years ahead in both knowlege of the system and overall experience. But, on another team, Giddens may have had a unique skillset in this regard.
His shooting must improve, but his shot-selection brings down his numbers overall. His actual spot-shooting, catch-and-shoot off screen, and pull-up aren't bad - much better than TA and reliable enough to set up his slashing game.
Picking spots is about learning where those spots are and getting repetition in - The D-League isn't doing this for him to the extent that an NBA team narrowing his focus down to 2-3 specific things would do.
You put him on the court, pump him up and gain his peak attentiveness by keeping him involved, and then break down film with him, get on the practice court and walk-through his spots and reads, and establish goals --- that's how you grow JR Giddens as a player IMO.
He will never learn as quickly without that specific guidance - playing an all-around game as he did in Utah will grow his overall ability, but its too broad in focus to quickly improve the specific skills he would need for a set role on Boston's team.
So, again - summer/TC/Pre will determine his progress on the Celtics as that will be the time he'll have the most exposure to the Celtics system, the most court time, and the most coaching...
-
Are you really arguing that Giddens could play in the GSW system? With his outside shooting? Who was the last guard who was successful there without being able to shoot the ball? Seriously, I'd really like to know the answer to this.
Funny thing is that I've always liked Giddens more than most and my post was generally complimentary of him. However, the homerism in this boards is just too much. Everything less than "oh, he's just as good as Orlando starting SG, he just didn't have the chance to prove it because our bench is so superior to the Magic's one..." is considered hate. It's truly mind-boggling.
Who's the strawman now?
Most of this thread is NOT stating outlandish or overboard projections for JR - the core of this thread is about whether or not JR Giddens could play positive NBA minutes with enough volume to be a contributor to an NBA rotation while growing as a player in the process.
A 20 page thread is going to get a few off-base comments, such as anything relating Courtney Lee to Giddens in terms of NBA readiness or situation.
Don't think there's been much homerism overall - just a difference in opinion about where Giddens is as a prospect.
-
As for Bill Walker, I'm not sure how you cite what he's done thus far as a "contribution". Walker outside of a few highlight-reel dunks has been galactically bad. Missing rotations, turning the ball over, and fouling seemingly at a rate that makes Mikki Moore look good.
That's precisely why I cited him.
And I agree with that. However, I think Walker's game is far more raw than Giddens. Right now Walker contributes raw size at the 3. JR's game is far more versatile even in the places it needs refinement. On our team, experience is a HUGE factor in playing time unless Doc's hand is forced by injury. If Pollard wasn't injured all of last year guaranteed we wouldn't have even seen Davis last year, and not much of Powe at all. And after Brown was added despite his ineffectiveness he played. You don't seem to see it for some reason but context plays a HUGE role in what Courtney Lee is doing right now compared to what JR is doing. Courtney's offensive game is good now but JR's game is more versatile and defensively he projects to be much better. Unfortunately I have to use the word "projects" because Doc didn't want to give the kid the chance to learn on the fly in the regular season like Van Gundy did with Lee.
Courtney Lee won't pick up blocks and rebounds like Giddens, but he is going to be a very stout defender in the NBA and his offensive game is pretty versatile - set shooting, pull-up, slash, floaters, etc...
I would take Courtney Lee over JR Giddens in a heartbeat - the things that Giddens has better upside in are not substantial enough to off-set Lee's more reliable projected development and the gap between the two as players if they both peaked at max potential is not that wide in terms of overall impact.