Jamaaliver wrote:Kid is a stud.
Get him an enforcer and a veteran PG for easy buckets.
I think that's what Jarret Allen and Ricky Rubio are for.
Moderator: ijspeelman
Jamaaliver wrote:Kid is a stud.
Get him an enforcer and a veteran PG for easy buckets.
Revenged25 wrote:Jamaaliver wrote:Kid is a stud.
Get him an enforcer and a veteran PG for easy buckets.
I think that's what Jarret Allen and Ricky Rubio are for.
DroseReturnChi wrote:Revenged25 wrote:Jamaaliver wrote:Kid is a stud.
Get him an enforcer and a veteran PG for easy buckets.
I think that's what Jarret Allen and Ricky Rubio are for.
yep no need to get additional resources. its more you need to build around mobley and get rid of guys that dont fit him.
sexton is pretty much lavine from 4 yrs ago. enjoy all the Ls if you keep him. i knew lavine would be this good but not worth sacrificing the entire team and mobley is already better than him. lavine and sexton are fringe all stars you add to a championship team as a last puzzle.
Revenged25 wrote:DroseReturnChi wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
I think that's what Jarret Allen and Ricky Rubio are for.
yep no need to get additional resources. its more you need to build around mobley and get rid of guys that dont fit him.
sexton is pretty much lavine from 4 yrs ago. enjoy all the Ls if you keep him. i knew lavine would be this good but not worth sacrificing the entire team and mobley is already better than him. lavine and sexton are fringe all stars you add to a championship team as a last puzzle.
I won't argue that, I put Booker in the same category as well. Immense talents scoring the ball, questionable defense more often than not, won't raise the floor of a team but will raise the ceiling. Granted I think Garland is a Jeff Teague caliber of player, one where you never feel the need to replace but one you'll never actually win with. Honestly we'd probably be better off moving on from both of Garland and Sexton, move Okoro to SG, with a defensive-minded facilitator that can shoot the 3 and go with something like (Unknown PG)/Okoro/Lauri/Mobley/Allen. With potentially 4 defensive players on the floor with Lauri they can move him where he would have the best success.
JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:DroseReturnChi wrote:
yep no need to get additional resources. its more you need to build around mobley and get rid of guys that dont fit him.
sexton is pretty much lavine from 4 yrs ago. enjoy all the Ls if you keep him. i knew lavine would be this good but not worth sacrificing the entire team and mobley is already better than him. lavine and sexton are fringe all stars you add to a championship team as a last puzzle.
I won't argue that, I put Booker in the same category as well. Immense talents scoring the ball, questionable defense more often than not, won't raise the floor of a team but will raise the ceiling. Granted I think Garland is a Jeff Teague caliber of player, one where you never feel the need to replace but one you'll never actually win with. Honestly we'd probably be better off moving on from both of Garland and Sexton, move Okoro to SG, with a defensive-minded facilitator that can shoot the 3 and go with something like (Unknown PG)/Okoro/Lauri/Mobley/Allen. With potentially 4 defensive players on the floor with Lauri they can move him where he would have the best success.
For the record ... Jeff Teague was averaging 3.2 & 1.7 when he was a 21 year old.
Also while you were tossing aside our young players, why did you stop at Okoro?
What has he done to demonstrate he's a starting caliber shooting guard?
Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
I won't argue that, I put Booker in the same category as well. Immense talents scoring the ball, questionable defense more often than not, won't raise the floor of a team but will raise the ceiling. Granted I think Garland is a Jeff Teague caliber of player, one where you never feel the need to replace but one you'll never actually win with. Honestly we'd probably be better off moving on from both of Garland and Sexton, move Okoro to SG, with a defensive-minded facilitator that can shoot the 3 and go with something like (Unknown PG)/Okoro/Lauri/Mobley/Allen. With potentially 4 defensive players on the floor with Lauri they can move him where he would have the best success.
For the record ... Jeff Teague was averaging 3.2 & 1.7 when he was a 21 year old.
Also while you were tossing aside our young players, why did you stop at Okoro?
What has he done to demonstrate he's a starting caliber shooting guard?
Able to defend, capable enough driver, though his shot needs to improve.
Also regardless of what people did at an early age it doesn't matter as they can either improve/regress as the years go on. I mean how many players have we seen put up good stats early on only to be out of the league a few years later. We've also seen the opposite where players that did nothing in the league early on end up being top 20 players. For example Jimmy Butler at 23 y/o was averaging 8.6 ppg/4 rpg and now for his career he's averaged 17.7/5.2/4.0 with his prime years averaging 20+/6+/5+.
Also this is taking into account what JB seems to be most comfortable coaching which is more of a hard nosed defensive team with maybe 1 at most 2 less than plus defenders in a rotation.
JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:
For the record ... Jeff Teague was averaging 3.2 & 1.7 when he was a 21 year old.
Also while you were tossing aside our young players, why did you stop at Okoro?
What has he done to demonstrate he's a starting caliber shooting guard?
Able to defend, capable enough driver, though his shot needs to improve.
Also regardless of what people did at an early age it doesn't matter as they can either improve/regress as the years go on. I mean how many players have we seen put up good stats early on only to be out of the league a few years later. We've also seen the opposite where players that did nothing in the league early on end up being top 20 players. For example Jimmy Butler at 23 y/o was averaging 8.6 ppg/4 rpg and now for his career he's averaged 17.7/5.2/4.0 with his prime years averaging 20+/6+/5+.
Also this is taking into account what JB seems to be most comfortable coaching which is more of a hard nosed defensive team with maybe 1 at most 2 less than plus defenders in a rotation.
Right. Its not about what they can't do at this age, its what might they do. But sure if Garland peaked at 20, maybe he's Teague?
The thing is Okoro has a SF game not a SG game. Not only is his shooting a work in progress he doesn't have advanced dribbling, finishing, or first step you'd like to see from a SG.
Lots more to work on then Garland whose main hurdles like Sexton are more mental than physical. Would we miss a beat if Stevens got Isaac's minutes?
I get wanting to settle on a lineup that makes sense, but we need to realize our investment in these young players. Give them all some more time to show us what they can do. We can't afford to give up on talent that's still improving.
Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
Able to defend, capable enough driver, though his shot needs to improve.
Also regardless of what people did at an early age it doesn't matter as they can either improve/regress as the years go on. I mean how many players have we seen put up good stats early on only to be out of the league a few years later. We've also seen the opposite where players that did nothing in the league early on end up being top 20 players. For example Jimmy Butler at 23 y/o was averaging 8.6 ppg/4 rpg and now for his career he's averaged 17.7/5.2/4.0 with his prime years averaging 20+/6+/5+.
Also this is taking into account what JB seems to be most comfortable coaching which is more of a hard nosed defensive team with maybe 1 at most 2 less than plus defenders in a rotation.
Right. Its not about what they can't do at this age, its what might they do. But sure if Garland peaked at 20, maybe he's Teague?
The thing is Okoro has a SF game not a SG game. Not only is his shooting a work in progress he doesn't have advanced dribbling, finishing, or first step you'd like to see from a SG.
Lots more to work on then Garland whose main hurdles like Sexton are more mental than physical. Would we miss a beat if Stevens got Isaac's minutes?
I get wanting to settle on a lineup that makes sense, but we need to realize our investment in these young players. Give them all some more time to show us what they can do. We can't afford to give up on talent that's still improving.
It's not just about wanting to settle on a line-up that makes sense, though that would be nice as well. I just think that Garland isn't a special player and never will be. He might put up better stats than Teague, but the caliber of player i.e. a really good player you never feel the need to replace but also isn't going to be the missing piece, is what he is.
I think Sexton could be a special player, but he needs the right system and coach to allow that, basically he needs to be a Knicks and try to imitate MVP Derrick Rose style of play to have that type of performance. Instead he's probably going to end up a 6th man if he doesn't improve his defense, off the dribble 3pt shot, and/or passing while not being in the Thibs system.
Also the NBA is becoming positionless, so our traditional ideas of who needs to be able to do what is going away. Okoro does enough things well that what he doesn't do well can be covered by someone else in the line-up. Plus like I said with the way JB seems to like to coach, I don't think Sexton or Garland are good fits for him. Plus if the Cavs did decide to build around Mobley, moving guys now, especially someone like Garland, would get the best return to find the right pieces that work with Mobley. I think having Lauri/Mobley/Allen as starters could work, but they would need probably another 1.5 defenders from the other 2 positions to ensure that there isn't a major whole defensively if Lauri can't keep it up solid play defensively.
toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:
Right. Its not about what they can't do at this age, its what might they do. But sure if Garland peaked at 20, maybe he's Teague?
The thing is Okoro has a SF game not a SG game. Not only is his shooting a work in progress he doesn't have advanced dribbling, finishing, or first step you'd like to see from a SG.
Lots more to work on then Garland whose main hurdles like Sexton are more mental than physical. Would we miss a beat if Stevens got Isaac's minutes?
I get wanting to settle on a lineup that makes sense, but we need to realize our investment in these young players. Give them all some more time to show us what they can do. We can't afford to give up on talent that's still improving.
It's not just about wanting to settle on a line-up that makes sense, though that would be nice as well. I just think that Garland isn't a special player and never will be. He might put up better stats than Teague, but the caliber of player i.e. a really good player you never feel the need to replace but also isn't going to be the missing piece, is what he is.
I think Sexton could be a special player, but he needs the right system and coach to allow that, basically he needs to be a Knicks and try to imitate MVP Derrick Rose style of play to have that type of performance. Instead he's probably going to end up a 6th man if he doesn't improve his defense, off the dribble 3pt shot, and/or passing while not being in the Thibs system.
Also the NBA is becoming positionless, so our traditional ideas of who needs to be able to do what is going away. Okoro does enough things well that what he doesn't do well can be covered by someone else in the line-up. Plus like I said with the way JB seems to like to coach, I don't think Sexton or Garland are good fits for him. Plus if the Cavs did decide to build around Mobley, moving guys now, especially someone like Garland, would get the best return to find the right pieces that work with Mobley. I think having Lauri/Mobley/Allen as starters could work, but they would need probably another 1.5 defenders from the other 2 positions to ensure that there isn't a major whole defensively if Lauri can't keep it up solid play defensively.
You pretty much need three league-average 3-point shooters on the floor or your spacing is going to be terrible. If you're running Rubio/Okoro/Markkannen/Mobley/Allen, you have one. There's no one to make up for Okoro's lack of shooting.
Revenged25 wrote:toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
It's not just about wanting to settle on a line-up that makes sense, though that would be nice as well. I just think that Garland isn't a special player and never will be. He might put up better stats than Teague, but the caliber of player i.e. a really good player you never feel the need to replace but also isn't going to be the missing piece, is what he is.
I think Sexton could be a special player, but he needs the right system and coach to allow that, basically he needs to be a Knicks and try to imitate MVP Derrick Rose style of play to have that type of performance. Instead he's probably going to end up a 6th man if he doesn't improve his defense, off the dribble 3pt shot, and/or passing while not being in the Thibs system.
Also the NBA is becoming positionless, so our traditional ideas of who needs to be able to do what is going away. Okoro does enough things well that what he doesn't do well can be covered by someone else in the line-up. Plus like I said with the way JB seems to like to coach, I don't think Sexton or Garland are good fits for him. Plus if the Cavs did decide to build around Mobley, moving guys now, especially someone like Garland, would get the best return to find the right pieces that work with Mobley. I think having Lauri/Mobley/Allen as starters could work, but they would need probably another 1.5 defenders from the other 2 positions to ensure that there isn't a major whole defensively if Lauri can't keep it up solid play defensively.
You pretty much need three league-average 3-point shooters on the floor or your spacing is going to be terrible. If you're running Rubio/Okoro/Markkannen/Mobley/Allen, you have one. There's no one to make up for Okoro's lack of shooting.
Well I think Mobley has a good enough midrange game to make up for it and ideally moving on from Garland would look to bring in more of a 3&D facilitating PG not just slotting in Rubio.
Though honesty the ideal starting line-up might be (Rubio/Sexton or Garland/Okoro)/Lauri/Mobley/Allen for the roster this year with the other pairing coming off the bench.
toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:toooskies wrote:You pretty much need three league-average 3-point shooters on the floor or your spacing is going to be terrible. If you're running Rubio/Okoro/Markkannen/Mobley/Allen, you have one. There's no one to make up for Okoro's lack of shooting.
Well I think Mobley has a good enough midrange game to make up for it and ideally moving on from Garland would look to bring in more of a 3&D facilitating PG not just slotting in Rubio.
Though honesty the ideal starting line-up might be (Rubio/Sexton or Garland/Okoro)/Lauri/Mobley/Allen for the roster this year with the other pairing coming off the bench.
If Mobley has an above-average midrange game that's still worse than a league-average 3pt shooter offensively.
You seem to think that 3&D facilitating PGs are readily available, but I'm not sure you do better than Rubio or Garland-- good at two out of three of those skills and mediocre at the third-- without trading for an all-star level guy or a guy with flaws (age, injury history, etc.). Rubio has the D/facilitating, Garland has the 3/facilitating. And all-stars that fit what you need and are somehow available for trade are rare, and finding one that wants to come to Cleveland in free agency will also be rare. It's more likely that Garland learns how to play D than we find that guy elsewhere.
Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
Able to defend, capable enough driver, though his shot needs to improve.
Also regardless of what people did at an early age it doesn't matter as they can either improve/regress as the years go on. I mean how many players have we seen put up good stats early on only to be out of the league a few years later. We've also seen the opposite where players that did nothing in the league early on end up being top 20 players. For example Jimmy Butler at 23 y/o was averaging 8.6 ppg/4 rpg and now for his career he's averaged 17.7/5.2/4.0 with his prime years averaging 20+/6+/5+.
Also this is taking into account what JB seems to be most comfortable coaching which is more of a hard nosed defensive team with maybe 1 at most 2 less than plus defenders in a rotation.
Right. Its not about what they can't do at this age, its what might they do. But sure if Garland peaked at 20, maybe he's Teague?
The thing is Okoro has a SF game not a SG game. Not only is his shooting a work in progress he doesn't have advanced dribbling, finishing, or first step you'd like to see from a SG.
Lots more to work on then Garland whose main hurdles like Sexton are more mental than physical. Would we miss a beat if Stevens got Isaac's minutes?
I get wanting to settle on a lineup that makes sense, but we need to realize our investment in these young players. Give them all some more time to show us what they can do. We can't afford to give up on talent that's still improving.
It's not just about wanting to settle on a line-up that makes sense, though that would be nice as well. I just think that Garland isn't a special player and never will be. He might put up better stats than Teague, but the caliber of player i.e. a really good player you never feel the need to replace but also isn't going to be the missing piece, is what he is.
I think Sexton could be a special player, but he needs the right system and coach to allow that, basically he needs to be a Knicks and try to imitate MVP Derrick Rose style of play to have that type of performance. Instead he's probably going to end up a 6th man if he doesn't improve his defense, off the dribble 3pt shot, and/or passing while not being in the Thibs system.
Also the NBA is becoming positionless, so our traditional ideas of who needs to be able to do what is going away. Okoro does enough things well that what he doesn't do well can be covered by someone else in the line-up. Plus like I said with the way JB seems to like to coach, I don't think Sexton or Garland are good fits for him. Plus if the Cavs did decide to build around Mobley, moving guys now, especially someone like Garland, would get the best return to find the right pieces that work with Mobley. I think having Lauri/Mobley/Allen as starters could work, but they would need probably another 1.5 defenders from the other 2 positions to ensure that there isn't a major whole defensively if Lauri can't keep it up solid play defensively.
toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:JonFromVA wrote:
Right. Its not about what they can't do at this age, its what might they do. But sure if Garland peaked at 20, maybe he's Teague?
The thing is Okoro has a SF game not a SG game. Not only is his shooting a work in progress he doesn't have advanced dribbling, finishing, or first step you'd like to see from a SG.
Lots more to work on then Garland whose main hurdles like Sexton are more mental than physical. Would we miss a beat if Stevens got Isaac's minutes?
I get wanting to settle on a lineup that makes sense, but we need to realize our investment in these young players. Give them all some more time to show us what they can do. We can't afford to give up on talent that's still improving.
It's not just about wanting to settle on a line-up that makes sense, though that would be nice as well. I just think that Garland isn't a special player and never will be. He might put up better stats than Teague, but the caliber of player i.e. a really good player you never feel the need to replace but also isn't going to be the missing piece, is what he is.
I think Sexton could be a special player, but he needs the right system and coach to allow that, basically he needs to be a Knicks and try to imitate MVP Derrick Rose style of play to have that type of performance. Instead he's probably going to end up a 6th man if he doesn't improve his defense, off the dribble 3pt shot, and/or passing while not being in the Thibs system.
Also the NBA is becoming positionless, so our traditional ideas of who needs to be able to do what is going away. Okoro does enough things well that what he doesn't do well can be covered by someone else in the line-up. Plus like I said with the way JB seems to like to coach, I don't think Sexton or Garland are good fits for him. Plus if the Cavs did decide to build around Mobley, moving guys now, especially someone like Garland, would get the best return to find the right pieces that work with Mobley. I think having Lauri/Mobley/Allen as starters could work, but they would need probably another 1.5 defenders from the other 2 positions to ensure that there isn't a major whole defensively if Lauri can't keep it up solid play defensively.
You pretty much need three league-average 3-point shooters on the floor or your spacing is going to be terrible. If you're running Rubio/Okoro/Markkannen/Mobley/Allen, you have one. There's no one to make up for Okoro's lack of shooting.
Revenged25 wrote:toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
Well I think Mobley has a good enough midrange game to make up for it and ideally moving on from Garland would look to bring in more of a 3&D facilitating PG not just slotting in Rubio.
Though honesty the ideal starting line-up might be (Rubio/Sexton or Garland/Okoro)/Lauri/Mobley/Allen for the roster this year with the other pairing coming off the bench.
If Mobley has an above-average midrange game that's still worse than a league-average 3pt shooter offensively.
You seem to think that 3&D facilitating PGs are readily available, but I'm not sure you do better than Rubio or Garland-- good at two out of three of those skills and mediocre at the third-- without trading for an all-star level guy or a guy with flaws (age, injury history, etc.). Rubio has the D/facilitating, Garland has the 3/facilitating. And all-stars that fit what you need and are somehow available for trade are rare, and finding one that wants to come to Cleveland in free agency will also be rare. It's more likely that Garland learns how to play D than we find that guy elsewhere.
So we need to either decide if we want to complain about lack of spacing or lack of defense as finding players that can do both is extremely hard as well.
Revenged25 wrote:toooskies wrote:Revenged25 wrote:
Well I think Mobley has a good enough midrange game to make up for it and ideally moving on from Garland would look to bring in more of a 3&D facilitating PG not just slotting in Rubio.
Though honesty the ideal starting line-up might be (Rubio/Sexton or Garland/Okoro)/Lauri/Mobley/Allen for the roster this year with the other pairing coming off the bench.
If Mobley has an above-average midrange game that's still worse than a league-average 3pt shooter offensively.
You seem to think that 3&D facilitating PGs are readily available, but I'm not sure you do better than Rubio or Garland-- good at two out of three of those skills and mediocre at the third-- without trading for an all-star level guy or a guy with flaws (age, injury history, etc.). Rubio has the D/facilitating, Garland has the 3/facilitating. And all-stars that fit what you need and are somehow available for trade are rare, and finding one that wants to come to Cleveland in free agency will also be rare. It's more likely that Garland learns how to play D than we find that guy elsewhere.
So we need to either decide if we want to complain about lack of spacing or lack of defense as finding players that can do both is extremely hard as well.
JonFromVA wrote:Revenged25 wrote:toooskies wrote:If Mobley has an above-average midrange game that's still worse than a league-average 3pt shooter offensively.
You seem to think that 3&D facilitating PGs are readily available, but I'm not sure you do better than Rubio or Garland-- good at two out of three of those skills and mediocre at the third-- without trading for an all-star level guy or a guy with flaws (age, injury history, etc.). Rubio has the D/facilitating, Garland has the 3/facilitating. And all-stars that fit what you need and are somehow available for trade are rare, and finding one that wants to come to Cleveland in free agency will also be rare. It's more likely that Garland learns how to play D than we find that guy elsewhere.
So we need to either decide if we want to complain about lack of spacing or lack of defense as finding players that can do both is extremely hard as well.
I'm mostly going to keep complaining about spacing because a) the balance between offense and defense has shifted, and b) a team can go pretty far with a bad defender or two. After all, we won a championship in 2016 with Irving and Love, and went to two finals after that with a horrible defense.
Not to mention, but having 3 players on the floor that can shoot the 3 is more of a baseline in this day and age, the goal should be 4 or 5; and some of them should have fear of god level gravity so defenses won't camp with a foot in the paint and try to late contest your shots.
On the other hand, I don't feel like we have to solve every problem at once. So for instance, if we feel Mobley and Okoro are our long-term solution and will start burying 3's sooner or later, I'm fine with starting them; but then JBB's bench units had better feature shooting lineups.
SaiCLE wrote:Sucks he only played 13 minutes the last game of the preseason. I’m positive he would have ended the game with a double double with 3 blocks and a few steals.
Mobley is a franchise level player and I wouldn’t take anyother rookie over him