Moderators: ChosenSavior, SOUL, UCF, Knightro, Howard Mass, UCFJayBird, Def Swami
DiplomaticMagic wrote:I cant even process my daily life without thinking about this game. Im so pissed. We should've totally won
pepe1991 wrote:Bakomagic wrote:I like the Luka pick, mastering the ability to play at your pace, never be sped up and use angles/leverage/strength/size and craftiness to become unstoppable on offense.
Jokic to learn how to ride horses
ChosenSavior wrote:Gotta get a handle on this going into Game 6...
DiplomaticMagic wrote:I cant even process my daily life without thinking about this game. Im so pissed. We should've totally won
tooler wrote:DiplomaticMagic wrote:I cant even process my daily life without thinking about this game. Im so pissed. We should've totally won
And here I'm thinking this game might not make it into the top 10 heartbreaking losses of the playoffs across the entire league this season.
RichCollab wrote:Skin wrote:eyriq wrote:It blows my mind. The only problem I have with Mosley. There is some sort of cohort effect that drives Mosley's decision making. Oh well, I trust Mosley.
Hopefully we have 2 new starting Guards next year.
Suggs is locked a starting position.
Paul George if we did bring him in would move Gary Harris out.
4/5 players can play make at that point. We don’t need a point guard
Skin wrote:RichCollab wrote:Skin wrote:Hopefully we have 2 new starting Guards next year.
Suggs is locked a starting position.
Paul George if we did bring him in would move Gary Harris out.
4/5 players can play make at that point. We don’t need a point guard
If we brought in Paul George, he would not sit on the bench behind Suggs. That is laughable.
You can say "we don't need a PG" and then play Suggs at PG, but saying George will come off the bench behind Suggs is hilarious.
But getting George is far fetched even for me. Nothing but a wish. So the problem in saying "we don't need a PG" is that if Suggs is your starting SG and we have some dude at PG who fits the "we don't need a PG" label... that low quality of PG will just mean that our team is still deficient.
I can deal with Suggs at SG, but not paired with the idea that we don't need a good PG. The hell with that thought! If Suggs is our starting SG next year, we NEED a Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard, Tyrese Maxey, Jalen Brunson, Tyrese Haliburton, Jamal Murray, SGA, Jrue Holiday, Darius Garland. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves thinking we can beat the teams with those PGs.
We could be looking for a player to bridge the gap between our players developing. Paul George was the 8th best player based on EPM this season. It's a risk, but if he played 74 games like this year, we could be a 60-win team.JoshuaPotter wrote:As a newly minted 40 something. Can we back off from the idea of bringing mid late 30 something players on this team and hoping for short to long term success.
Now if it was 20 something player looking to cement a legacy while making some money.....
tooler wrote:DiplomaticMagic wrote:I cant even process my daily life without thinking about this game. Im so pissed. We should've totally won
And here I'm thinking this game might not make it into the top 10 heartbreaking losses of the playoffs across the entire league this season.
JoshuaPotter wrote:As a newly minted 40 something. Can we back off from the idea of bringing mid late 30 something players on this team and hoping for short to long term success.
Now if it was 20 something player looking to cement a legacy while making some money.....
Optimus_Steel wrote:tooler wrote:DiplomaticMagic wrote:I cant even process my daily life without thinking about this game. Im so pissed. We should've totally won
And here I'm thinking this game might not make it into the top 10 heartbreaking losses of the playoffs across the entire league this season.
Where this team is development wise, this was not a devastating loss or anything remotely close to it. Disappointing because it was so close sure but not devastating, I'm not even mad or upset because the future of this team is bright, its so palpable. Shaq & Penny got sweept first playoff as did Dwight & Jameer. This team is potentially heading to a game 7, we are ahead of schedule.
RichCollab wrote:Skin wrote:RichCollab wrote:
Suggs is locked a starting position.
Paul George if we did bring him in would move Gary Harris out.
4/5 players can play make at that point. We don’t need a point guard
If we brought in Paul George, he would not sit on the bench behind Suggs. That is laughable.
You can say "we don't need a PG" and then play Suggs at PG, but saying George will come off the bench behind Suggs is hilarious.
But getting George is far fetched even for me. Nothing but a wish. So the problem in saying "we don't need a PG" is that if Suggs is your starting SG and we have some dude at PG who fits the "we don't need a PG" label... that low quality of PG will just mean that our team is still deficient.
I can deal with Suggs at SG, but not paired with the idea that we don't need a good PG. The hell with that thought! If Suggs is our starting SG next year, we NEED a Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard, Tyrese Maxey, Jalen Brunson, Tyrese Haliburton, Jamal Murray, SGA, Jrue Holiday, Darius Garland. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves thinking we can beat the teams with those PGs.
You don’t need a traditional PG in this scenario. We don’t bring in PG13 if the FO doesn’t think he can start with Paolo, Franz, and Suggs. I’m certain of that.
Skin wrote:RichCollab wrote:Skin wrote:Hopefully we have 2 new starting Guards next year.
Suggs is locked a starting position.
Paul George if we did bring him in would move Gary Harris out.
4/5 players can play make at that point. We don’t need a point guard
If we brought in Paul George, he would not sit on the bench behind Suggs. That is laughable.
You can say "we don't need a PG" and then play Suggs at PG, but saying George will come off the bench behind Suggs is hilarious.
But getting George is far fetched even for me. Nothing but a wish. So the problem in saying "we don't need a PG" is that if Suggs is your starting SG and we have some dude at PG who fits the "we don't need a PG" label... that low quality of PG will just mean that our team is still deficient.
I can deal with Suggs at SG, but not paired with the idea that we don't need a good PG. The hell with that thought! If Suggs is our starting SG next year, we NEED a Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard, Tyrese Maxey, Jalen Brunson, Tyrese Haliburton, Jamal Murray, SGA, Jrue Holiday, Darius Garland. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves thinking we can beat the teams with those PGs.
MagicMatic wrote:RichCollab wrote:Skin wrote:If we brought in Paul George, he would not sit on the bench behind Suggs. That is laughable.
You can say "we don't need a PG" and then play Suggs at PG, but saying George will come off the bench behind Suggs is hilarious.
But getting George is far fetched even for me. Nothing but a wish. So the problem in saying "we don't need a PG" is that if Suggs is your starting SG and we have some dude at PG who fits the "we don't need a PG" label... that low quality of PG will just mean that our team is still deficient.
I can deal with Suggs at SG, but not paired with the idea that we don't need a good PG. The hell with that thought! If Suggs is our starting SG next year, we NEED a Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard, Tyrese Maxey, Jalen Brunson, Tyrese Haliburton, Jamal Murray, SGA, Jrue Holiday, Darius Garland. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves thinking we can beat the teams with those PGs.
You don’t need a traditional PG in this scenario. We don’t bring in PG13 if the FO doesn’t think he can start with Paolo, Franz, and Suggs. I’m certain of that.
I think Im going to have an aneurysm if I have to read another proposal about how adding a volume SG is the solution to Orlandos problems. Are we even watching the same team? Paolo has an insane amount of TO's per game.
You don't heavily invest in TWO 6'10-6'11 wing offensive engines to then bring in a volume shooting guard to take more possessions away from them. You bring in a point guard to set the table for them and open up easier baskets so they aren't turning the ball over a million times.
That is why Suggs is the perfect archetype next to them at SG. He doesn't need to score, but when he does it means Orlando wins games. Yes, he needs to be more consistent game to game. Every young player does. No, Suggs is not a traditional point guard. He's a guard and always has been.
People are wanting to solve one problem, which in turn ends up creating more problems. You don't need to take possessions away from the core. They need to make the possessions more efficient. You aren't accomplishing that with another ball stopping wing. Paolo and Franz are on the floor to score. Make their lives easier by getting a point guard that isnt broken and can run an offense. We don't need to watch Paolo ISO dudes 20 feet from the basket, pretending to be a point forward, while everyone stands around and watches. It's just mind numbingly stupid predictable offense.
Knightro wrote:MagicMatic wrote:RichCollab wrote:
You don’t need a traditional PG in this scenario. We don’t bring in PG13 if the FO doesn’t think he can start with Paolo, Franz, and Suggs. I’m certain of that.
I think Im going to have an aneurysm if I have to read another proposal about how adding a volume SG is the solution to Orlandos problems. Are we even watching the same team? Paolo has an insane amount of TO's per game.
You don't heavily invest in TWO 6'10-6'11 wing offensive engines to then bring in a volume shooting guard to take more possessions away from them. You bring in a point guard to set the table for them and open up easier baskets so they aren't turning the ball over a million times.
That is why Suggs is the perfect archetype next to them at SG. He doesn't need to score, but when he does it means Orlando wins games. Yes, he needs to be more consistent game to game. Every young player does. No, Suggs is not a traditional point guard. He's a guard and always has been.
People are wanting to solve one problem, which in turn ends up creating more problems. You don't need to take possessions away from the core. They need to make the possessions more efficient. You aren't accomplishing that with another ball stopping wing. Paolo and Franz are on the floor to score. Make their lives easier by getting a point guard that isnt broken and can run an offense. We don't need to watch Paolo ISO dudes 20 feet from the basket, pretending to be a point forward, while everyone stands around and watches. It's just mind numbingly stupid predictable offense.
I don't necessarily agree with this.
if you have the 22nd ranked offense and have the ability to bring in players who can score 20-25 PPG on .600 TS% and also create good shots for teammates like a Paul George and all it would cost is cap space is obviously very beneficial.
If this is more about Monk... I'd argue that the only way it would be worth it to sign him would be if you believe he's ready to transition to full time starting point guard. If you don't think that, then he probably isn't worth pursuing.
Monk's value, at least to me, is in his playmaking ability more than his scoring - which extrapolated over a starting role certainly looks like it's point guard caliber. But I'm not sure that's risk the Magic's front office is willing to take.
MagicMatic wrote:You'd fix the problem twofold with a point guard that CAN shoot, rather than a shooter that fills in as a guy that can kind of run an offense. One is a more difficult skillset and one is more common. Just because Orlando lacks shooting everywhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere in players with more diverse skillsets.
My argument is that Orlando's offense is ranked 22nd not because there arent more efficient shooters to take possessions away from guys. It's because Franz and Paolo are entirely efficient while ALSO not having an extra shooter on the perimeter. If Im comparing two players based on cost and impact on acquisition Im leaning toward someone like 7.5/1 - A/TO Tyus Jones next to Suggs with a .400 3p% rather than a more expensive Monk at 5.2/2 - A/TO and a .453 3p% pretending to run point guard.
Paul George solves nothing outside of an established star veteran that has won nothing and will take possessions away from the core.
Knightro wrote:MagicMatic wrote:You'd fix the problem twofold with a point guard that CAN shoot, rather than a shooter that fills in as a guy that can kind of run an offense. One is a more difficult skillset and one is more common. Just because Orlando lacks shooting everywhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere in players with more diverse skillsets.
My argument is that Orlando's offense is ranked 22nd not because there arent more efficient shooters to take possessions away from guys. It's because Franz and Paolo are entirely efficient while ALSO not having an extra shooter on the perimeter. If Im comparing two players based on cost and impact on acquisition Im leaning toward someone like 7.5/1 - A/TO Tyus Jones next to Suggs with a .400 3p% rather than a more expensive Monk at 5.2/2 - A/TO and a .453 3p% pretending to run point guard.
Paul George solves nothing outside of an established star veteran that has won nothing and will take possessions away from the core.
If you're trying to sit there and say Tyus Jones would be a better acquisition piece than Paul George or Malik Monk...
I don't know man. I'm all for a point guard who can shoot, but talent is also talent.
