Giddens carries Flash to the D-League Finals

[BillfromBoston]

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...

[cordobes]

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.

[winsomme]

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..

[cordobes]

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?

[winsomme]

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...

[cordobes]

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.

[BillfromBoston]

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.

[winsomme]

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.

[Chris]

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)

[BillfromBoston]

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.

[winsomme]

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...

[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. 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.

[winsomme]

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...

[BillfromBoston]

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.

[cordobes]

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?