Giddens carries Flash to the D-League Finals

[winsomme]

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?

[cordobes]

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?

[winsomme]

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...

[cordobes]

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.

[winsomme]

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?

[cordobes]

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.

[winsomme]

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...

[Atzar]

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. 

[The Walker Wiggle]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[cordobes]

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?

[cordobes]

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.

[Atzar]

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.

[cordobes]

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.

[cordobes]

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.