Thoughts on C's development and other issues

[Atzar]

Walker can't play NBA defense yet, and Giddens can't play NBA offense yet.  Neither one of them is ready.  I like how Doc is trying to give Pruitt some burn, but it apparently doesn't seem to be working very well - I haven't been impressed with him lately, with the exception of his minutes when Eddie was out against Utah.  The fact that POB didn't see the floor when Perk was down speaks volumes about Doc's opinion of him at this time.  In the meantime, hopefully Danny can pull in Alonzo or PJ as a backup big down the stretch. 

I never thought I'd say this, but it's time to dust off Cassell.  He's the point guard and veteran leadership off the bench that everybody is talking about.  He can create his own offense, and contrary to popular opinion he can create for others as well - much better than House or TA can, at least. 

[Induna]

exactly why are Walker and Giddens not ready?

[Atzar]

First sentence of my post said it all, I think.  Walker can't stay in front of his man, and Giddens doesn't know where to be on offense.  Both of them would be a liability to this team right now, and that's exactly why they're in the D League.

[Induna]

I agree with Giddens but not Walker

[ManUp]

I agree with Giddens but not Walker

You agree that Giddens offense isn't good enough, but disagree with Walkers defense isn't? I think that probably has more to do with your preference for Walker over Giddens, than about who's actually more ready. If we're picking between good offense, and good defense for this team you've got to take the Good defense.
 
We need the rookies to be able to defend if they want minutes, not score. If they're able to defend they can play on the floor without being a liablity, the offense will come. Scoring is the easiest part of basketball, the hard stuff is rebounding, defending, and making the right plays. I would say that Giddens is ahead of Walker in those departments, and he's still the better scorer (according to d-league numbers).

I doubt either of the two Rookies knows our offensive or defensive schemes well enough to warrant playing time off of that alone. With that said, I do think both of the Rookies are ready for real minutes in the NBA, but not extended minutes. On this team giving rookies a huge amount of minutes wouldn't be smart. What we lack is consistency from the bench and we're not going to get it from the rookies.

If for some odd reason we were to give one of the two a chance, I think Giddens would be the wiser choice. You pick Walker if you feel his size, and height will make that much of a difference over Giddens. You pick Giddens for his defense, and rebounding the points and scoring opportunities will come. According to Doc neither is ready, but if I had to pick one of the two i'd go with Giddens.

...then again this is all probably just based on my preference for Giddens over Walker.

[elcotte]

Pruitt is legit? The main advantage of Pruitt over House is we aren't sure what Pruitt's shortcomings are. That doesn't make him legit. Pruitt's dribbling is probably more legit than Houses, but there is no indication that he runs the offense any better.

Pruitt drained of confidence? Based on what? When did he seem more confident, and what was the difference that indicates this change?

I wish we had more blowouts so that Pruitt could get more run earlier in games, but the team has not seemed successful with him on the floor. His open 3's look great.

TP

The fiction surrounding Pruitt on this board continues to grow ...

The fiction works both ways.....to say he can't play is just as short sighted.

[cordobes]

Is this 2006 again?

nah it isn't but I deeply fear the Bynum factor might just be what people said it would be. It also really hurt to see the bench being eaten up by Vujacic and Ariza and co. Especially when there is talent like Walker and Pruitt available - hey of they fail I am wrong if they don't play we don't know. We know what Scal, BBD and House bring so now lets see if POB, Walker and Pruitt can bring

Were you surprised? Of course the Lakers bench players are better than ours, only here one could read otherwise.

I'm pretty sure about what Pruitt, POB and Walker can bring, at least in the short-term.

[housecall]

Until Doc finds the playing time or feel Pruitt is capable to play in prime time of any games we can't really get a true read on what his plus's or minus's are on the court.Same thing go's for POB,its not really fair to judge them as it stands.Doc had chances in the past few games but refuses to give them a chance.Last night im watching Utah vs Houston,Milsap's out,Boozer is still out,their 3rd option was a guy just came up from the D League this yr.,played like he was a starting C for a couple seasons.Point is,how will we ever really know about certain players what the true development is at this point unless they get some decent playing time in the heat of the battle.

[BrickJames]

Pruitt is legit? The main advantage of Pruitt over House is we aren't sure what Pruitt's shortcomings are. That doesn't make him legit. Pruitt's dribbling is probably more legit than Houses, but there is no indication that he runs the offense any better.

Pruitt drained of confidence? Based on what? When did he seem more confident, and what was the difference that indicates this change?

I wish we had more blowouts so that Pruitt could get more run earlier in games, but the team has not seemed successful with him on the floor. His open 3's look great.

TP

The fiction surrounding Pruitt on this board continues to grow ...

The fiction works both ways.....to say he can't play is just as short sighted.

Not quite, young padawan.  Assuming that he "can't play" is actually the much safer bet - he is a second round draft choice trade fodder who has shown relatively nothing on the court in the limited time we've seen him.  Yes, he can hit the open three and stay in front of his man, but unfortunately it takes a little bit more than that.  Most with his skills don't pan out - why are we to assume he will?  Because he wears Green?  Because we'd like him to?

The overestimation of Pruitt is homerism at its finest.

[Induna]

I agree with Giddens but not Walker

You agree that Giddens offense isn't good enough, but disagree with Walkers defense isn't? I think that probably has more to do with your preference for Walker over Giddens, than about who's actually more ready. If we're picking between good offense, and good defense for this team you've got to take the Good defense.
 
We need the rookies to be able to defend if they want minutes, not score. If they're able to defend they can play on the floor without being a liablity, the offense will come. Scoring is the easiest part of basketball, the hard stuff is rebounding, defending, and making the right plays. I would say that Giddens is ahead of Walker in those departments, and he's still the better scorer (according to d-league numbers).

I doubt either of the two Rookies knows our offensive or defensive schemes well enough to warrant playing time off of that alone. With that said, I do think both of the Rookies are ready for real minutes in the NBA, but not extended minutes. On this team giving rookies a huge amount of minutes wouldn't be smart. What we lack is consistency from the bench and we're not going to get it from the rookies.

If for some odd reason we were to give one of the two a chance, I think Giddens would be the wiser choice. You pick Walker if you feel his size, and height will make that much of a difference over Giddens. You pick Giddens for his defense, and rebounding the points and scoring opportunities will come. According to Doc neither is ready, but if I had to pick one of the two i'd go with Giddens.

...then again this is all probably just based on my preference for Giddens over Walker.

According to Doc no one has ever been ready until he was left with absolutely no choice but to play them.

I pick Walker because I like his agressiveness and his rebounding and because he can play some 3. With Allen, Allen and House there is more need at 3 than 2

I also think Giddens looked more lost in pre-season but my real point is just like some of the other rookies getting some burn these guys may be able to contribute now and perhaps more than some of the current bench guys.

[Chris]

I also think Giddens looked more lost in pre-season but my real point is just like some of the other rookies getting some burn these guys may be able to contribute now and perhaps more than some of the current bench guys.

Or they could not be ready yet, and have their confidence shaken by being thrown into the fire, and not being able to produce.

I understand that there really is no proof either way, but I am strongly in the camp that Doc has done a great job of waiting to play young guys until they are ready, and he can put them in a position to succeed, rather than throwing them in over their head.  I think it has worked out very well.

[Induna]

I understand that there really is no proof either way, but I am strongly in the camp that Doc has done a great job of waiting to play young guys until they are ready, and he can put them in a position to succeed, rather than throwing them in over their head.  I think it has worked out very well.

Fair enough comment - there really isn't much evidence either way

[BrickJames]

I understand that there really is no proof either way, but I am strongly in the camp that Doc has done a great job of waiting to play young guys until they are ready, and he can put them in a position to succeed, rather than throwing them in over their head.  I think it has worked out very well.

Fair enough comment - there really isn't much evidence either way

Read my post above.  It's not about "evidence either way"...if you want to talk in terms of "evidence", the burden of proof is on Gabe and those who support him.  Scrub until proven otherwise (reasoning is above)

[Chris]

I understand that there really is no proof either way, but I am strongly in the camp that Doc has done a great job of waiting to play young guys until they are ready, and he can put them in a position to succeed, rather than throwing them in over their head.  I think it has worked out very well.

Fair enough comment - there really isn't much evidence either way

Read my post above.  It's not about "evidence either way"...if you want to talk in terms of "evidence", the burden of proof is on Gabe and those who support him.  Scrub until proven otherwise (reasoning is above)

I think there is nothing to say that Pruitt will not be a solid player in this league.  He has the tools to at least be a very good role player.  He is a good shooter and scorer, decent ballhandler, talented defender (although still learning team defense...and you can say that about many young guys).  He has a better skillset than many role players in the league (I would argue that he has better skills than House for example).  But of course there are also plenty of guys with similar, or better skill-sets who have washed out.

What we don't know about Pruitt is whether he has the intangibles that it takes to make it in the league.  This is what sets someone like Eddie House apart from someone like Joe Forte, and it is impossible for anyone to know at this point if he has "it". 

But regardless, I think Doc has shown that he is very talented at putting these borderline players into positions where they will succeed, and in doing that, he helps them to build a career that might not have been there if they had just been thrown out there.