Hoops - NBA/Basketball Talk

[brokenshoelace]

Lmao, this JR Smith thing is hilarious. If Kyrie was frustrated with Waiters taking too many shots, I bet he's going to love playing with JR.

The difference is that JR is simply more talented than Waiters and a better shooter.

Shumpert is a good acquisition because at least he can play defense, something the Cavs have stinked at this year.

Complete myth. Shumpert is one of the least smart defenders I have ever seen. As someone who watched the Knicks constantly the last couple years, I have to say that I haven't seen someone so overrated as Shumpert is as a defender.

JR is the much more important player in this trade.

JR will be inconsequential.

That's not even possible. I will grant that the coaches will probably repress him like all coaches have, but he will have his chances to make a major impact, and he will do just that.

He and Lebron are not going to "dominate together," let's be real here.

If they don't, it will be because of coaching incompetence, which is always a very real possibility I am sorry to say.

Cali, the Cavs didn't want JR. Or at least, he wasn't who they were really after. He was just a piece of the puzzle so that the Knicks can free up cap space and the Cavs could get them to agree to the deal. They'll just roll the dice and make him come off the bench but that's about it. I know you love him and all but it's pretty easy to tell what's going on here.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I like the deal for OKC, they needed another scorer.. If Durant and Westbrook doesnt win a championship together, letting James Harden go may turn out to be the Thunder downfall.. I hope not because Westbrook is my favorite player to watch after Kobe.

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Well, your point is understood but let's take a look at the past 3 years.. injuries to Westbrook and Durant but OKC still remain relative competitive. Ibaka is a great defender but he isnt a top 10 player like Harden..BS, You know the rule in the NBA, you need 3 great stars or at least 2 immortals stars to win . OKC had 3 under the age of 25, that is very rare. You can find another defender but a scorer such as the caliber of Harden, OKC is still searching, IMO

 

[DarthFed]

^ A distant 5th. You'll see

Awww. No love for Dirk and Rondo? :snigger

Got "some" love for them but got more for Durant and Westbrook as well as the better all around clubs like Memphis, GS and a healthy and serious SA.

 

[calitennis127]

I like the deal for OKC, they needed another scorer.. If Durant and Westbrook doesnt win a championship together, letting James Harden go may turn out to be the Thunder downfall.. I hope not because Westbrook is my favorite player to watch after Kobe.

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Completely disagree.....they would have been better off keeping Harden and letting Ibaka go. They absolutely could have won the Finals in 2012 if LeBron didn't outplay Durant as much as he did.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, the Cavs didn't want JR.

No one does, because they are mostly just fools. He has his reputation and it scares people away, but when he is on a roster, everyone in house respects the hell out of him because of the game he brings to the table.

Or at least, he wasn't who they were really after.

It may be possible that Shumpert was more so the player they wanted, and if so, that is silly. But JR will have a presence from Day 1. He is too great offensively for it to be otherwise.

They'll just roll the dice and make him come off the bench but that's about it.

With as inspired and well as he is about to play, I highly doubt that it will be a case of "that's about it".

 

[calitennis127]

I dont trust JR Smith in that or any system..

Why not?

JR is a very streaky shooter.. He can be dangeous at times but IMO not to the level as Mike Miller. I think he has regress since he left Denver but you know him better than the average fan. If you are good with the trade and feel that this can work well with LBJ and current company.. We shall see

In terms of playing style and complementarity, LeBron and JR are a match made in basketball heaven. And I think it is very diminishing to JR's talent that you would place him in the same category as Mike Miller as a shooter. JR is much quicker and more versatile in getting shots off than Miller ever has been. There is a reason JR has the all-time NBA record for most three-pointers made in a three-game span. His footwork is impeccable and his style of shooting isn't just a matter of taking open shots; it is ATHLETIC shooting, where he sets up his shot from a variety of angles and in various ways but still maintains excellent balance. Anyone who has played basketball knows how hard what JR does in setting up his shot at a long distance is.

Here are two highlight videos that illustrate JR's immense talent, shooting ability, and very high IQ passing (which of course goes untalked about by the average analysts and fans):

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IErzrs9SdY[/video]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XYHCEaj19Q[/video]

 

[DarthFed]

I like the deal for OKC, they needed another scorer.. If Durant and Westbrook doesnt win a championship together, letting James Harden go may turn out to be the Thunder downfall.. I hope not because Westbrook is my favorite player to watch after Kobe.

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Completely disagree.....they would have been better off keeping Harden and letting Ibaka go. They absolutely could have won the Finals in 2012 if LeBron didn't outplay Durant as much as he did.

I see BS' point as well as AP's and yours. Assuming they couldn't keep both Harden and Ibaka it is not so cut and dry which they should have chosen to keep. Clearly Harden is the all around better player but the team already had 2 awesome scorers and Westbrook and Harden are the type that needs the ball in their hands at all times. Meanwhile Ibaka gives you great defense, decent rebounding and scoring. That said Harden was obviously huge for the bench and big for a situation where Durant and/or Westbrook are out with injuries.

And one other factor...will they keep both Westbrook and Durant when their contracts are up? If not, then it becomes a typical "hindsight is 20-20" error that they didn't keep Harden because by now it is clear that the Thunder aren't true contenders when either Durant or Westbrook are not playing.

 

[calitennis127]

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Completely disagree.....they would have been better off keeping Harden and letting Ibaka go. They absolutely could have won the Finals in 2012 if LeBron didn't outplay Durant as much as he did.

I see BS' point as well as AP's and yours. Assuming they couldn't keep both Harden and Ibaka it is not so cut and dry which they should have chosen to keep. Clearly Harden is the all around better player but the team already had 2 awesome scorers and Westbrook is the type that needs the ball in his hands at all times. Meanwhile Ibaka gives you great defense, decent rebounding and scoring. That said Harden was obviously huge for the bench and big for a situation where Durant and/or Westbrook are out with injuries.

And one other factor...will they keep both Westbrook and Durant when their contracts are up? If not, then it becomes a typical "hindsight is 20-20" error that they didn't keep Harden because by now it is clear that the Thunder aren't true contenders when either Durant or Westbrook are not playing.

Darth, when did Westbrook, Durant, and Harden ever have trouble sharing the ball?

There wasn't even so much as a single quote from them to the media where they voiced displeasure with each other taking shots, and when they were on the floor simultaneously, their games meshed very well.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Fair point but if there was a problem on the Thunder especially back then it was that Westbrook didn't defer to KD in crunch time and he used to be especially reckless at times (still is but not as bad). KD as we know is about as laid back and humble as one could expect from a mega superstar, so he was never going to mention it.

But you are right with Harden, he filled the role extremely well and provided one hell of a spark...but, and it's a big but, would he have continued to willfully come off the bench and play a distant third fiddle to Durant and Westbrook? I confess I had no idea Harden would become what he has but clearly he knew better, and maybe it wouldn't have worked out in the long run for him in OKC.

 

[I.Haychew]

Bad feeling...this is the Bulls year to make the finals. I don't think they'll win but I don't see who is beating them out East unless Lebron seriously comes to life.

It's a tough one to call. They've won 6 in a row against the Western conference. They could actually find a way to win 4 games against GSW, Memphis or OKC.

Yeah I'm not saying they have no chance but the West is still going to be 1 of 4 teams, Golden State, OKC, SA, or Memphis. Not sure I'd favor Chicago over any if they don't have HCA.

What? No love phor my TrailBlazers?

 

[the AntiPusher]

I like the deal for OKC, they needed another scorer.. If Durant and Westbrook doesnt win a championship together, letting James Harden go may turn out to be the Thunder downfall.. I hope not because Westbrook is my favorite player to watch after Kobe.

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Well, your point is understood but let's take a look at the past 3 years.. ingjuries to Westbrook and Durant but OKC still remain relative competitive. Ibaka is a great defender but he isnt a top 10 player like Harden..BS, You know the rule in the NBA, you need 3 great stars or at least 2 immortals stars to win . OKC had 3 under the age of 25, that is very rare. You can find another defender but a scorer such as the caliber of Harden, OKC is still searching, IMO

letting Harden go would have made sense if Serge was as good of defender as Rodman was, but he isn't and will never will be. I don't recall Serge stoppping LBj or Dwade in the 2012 Finals , Rodman could have handled both players, IMO.

 

[DarthFed]

It's a tough one to call. They've won 6 in a row against the Western conference. They could actually find a way to win 4 games against GSW, Memphis or OKC.

Yeah I'm not saying they have no chance but the West is still going to be 1 of 4 teams, Golden State, OKC, SA, or Memphis. Not sure I'd favor Chicago over any if they don't have HCA.

What? No love phor my TrailBlazers?

Nothing personal Mr. Chew but...no chance. They might reach the 2nd round depending on the matchup but that's it at this point.

 

[calitennis127]

^ Fair point but if there was a problem on the Thunder especially back then it was that Westbrook didn't defer to KD in crunch time and he used to be especially reckless at times (still is but not as bad). KD as we know is about as laid back and humble as one could expect from a mega superstar, so he was never going to mention it.

But you are right with Harden, he filled the role extremely well and provided one hell of a spark...but, and it's a big but, would he have continued to willfully come off the bench and play a distant third fiddle to Durant and Westbrook? I confess I had no idea Harden would become what he has but clearly he knew better, and maybe it wouldn't have worked out in the long run for him in OKC.

Why couldn't they have just started all three? No one ever seems to answer that question.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I like the deal for OKC, they needed another scorer.. If Durant and Westbrook doesnt win a championship together, letting James Harden go may turn out to be the Thunder downfall.. I hope not because Westbrook is my favorite player to watch after Kobe.

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Completely disagree.....they would have been better off keeping Harden and letting Ibaka go. They absolutely could have won the Finals in 2012 if LeBron didn't outplay Durant as much as he did.

OKC would not have won a championship with Perkins and Collison as their front line. Also, both Harden and Ibaka were there in 2012, and Harden wet the bed in that series. I know he's improved since then but part of it was being the man in Houston, which never would have happened with OKC.

 

[brokenshoelace]

With as inspired and well as he is about to play, I highly doubt that it will be a case of "that's about it".

Cleveland actually share the ball well when they're clicking. Lebron and Kyrie command enough attention to give JR some high quality looks, as opposed to him having to create his own shot off the dribble and going 2/10 shooting. He can be useful, but he'll be streaky, as he always is, and "dominating" is a huge stretch. That team has way too many problems, and JR is not the answer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Well, your point is understood but let's take a look at the past 3 years.. ingjuries to Westbrook and Durant but OKC still remain relative competitive. Ibaka is a great defender but he isnt a top 10 player like Harden..BS, You know the rule in the NBA, you need 3 great stars or at least 2 immortals stars to win . OKC had 3 under the age of 25, that is very rare. You can find another defender but a scorer such as the caliber of Harden, OKC is still searching, IMO

letting Harden go would have made sense if Serge was as good of defender as Rodman was, but he isn't and will never will be. I don't recall Serge stoppping LBj or Dwade in the 2012 Finals , Rodman could have handled both players, IMO.

Serge is no Rodman, sure. But very few people are, defensively. I actually kind agree that because of his ability to protect the rim, Serge's defense at times gets overstated. As in, he's not that great of a one on one defender in the post (he's pretty good, but nothing super special). However, you gotta take into account that the guy is improving offensively. He's developed and mid-range game and this year, has been shooting the 3 well. He's versatile and can even play as a stretch power forward is need be.

Obviously he's no top 10 player and in vacuum, Harden is the much better player. But Ibaka is a better fit at OKC, especially if Steven Adams continues to improve because together, they can from a pretty good duo.

Ibaka's defense is essential to getting OKC going in the open court, which is where the excel the most.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Fair point but if there was a problem on the Thunder especially back then it was that Westbrook didn't defer to KD in crunch time and he used to be especially reckless at times (still is but not as bad). KD as we know is about as laid back and humble as one could expect from a mega superstar, so he was never going to mention it.

But you are right with Harden, he filled the role extremely well and provided one hell of a spark...but, and it's a big but, would he have continued to willfully come off the bench and play a distant third fiddle to Durant and Westbrook? I confess I had no idea Harden would become what he has but clearly he knew better, and maybe it wouldn't have worked out in the long run for him in OKC.

Why couldn't they have just started all three? No one ever seems to answer that question.

For the same reason they don't start Reggie Jackson (not that he's the player Harden is). Scott Brooks loves his starting shooting guard to be able to guard people. That's why he was playing Sefolosha, and now starts with Andre Roberson. Thunder's style of play is built upon strong defense. Harden would have continued to play plenty of minutes, especially when it matters, so him being a starter or not is almost irrelevant, but again, Thunder's offense in the half court is atrocious and they have to work so hard to score, especially in late game situations when the defense tightens and the game slows down. Now I guess with Harden, they'd have one more option to go to, but in an already ISO heavy offense with no ball movement, you're only making it worse. It's not that Westbrook or Durant have a problem deferring (at least not anymore in Westbrook's case, even though he can still be erratic), it's that it's literally "your turn, my turn, whoever is hot's turn" as opposed to proper offense.

In the end this is the real problem with OKC and it begins and ends with Scott Brooks. A more offensively competent coach could have probably make it work with Harden but because of the way Scott Brooks runs his offense, Ibaka is the more fitting choice.

 

[calitennis127]

With as inspired and well as he is about to play, I highly doubt that it will be a case of "that's about it".

Cleveland actually share the ball well when they're clicking. Lebron and Kyrie command enough attention to give JR some high quality looks, as opposed to him having to create his own shot off the dribble and going 2/10 shooting. He can be useful, but he'll be streaky, as he always is, and "dominating" is a huge stretch. That team has way too many problems, and JR is not the answer.

No, with enough playing time, JR absolutely can be the answer. He is one of the 5 or 10 most talented players in the NBA (I would argue the most talented if allowed to be unrestricted). We're not talking about just any shooting guard here. I recommend that you watch the videos I posted above and then take a swing at explaining who else in the NBA can do those things.

 

[calitennis127]

OKC was never going to win a title with Harden. They're already ISO heavy as it is, and Brooks is terrible at running a decent offense in the half court. They take bad shots as it is and only get by due to the immense talent of their top 2 stars. They are also built on good defense which allows them to flow in the open court. Giving up Ibaka while keeping Harden would have killed that, and the team would have been about 3 exceptionally talented Bastkeball players taking turns playing one on one offense. You don't win a championship that way.

Completely disagree.....they would have been better off keeping Harden and letting Ibaka go. They absolutely could have won the Finals in 2012 if LeBron didn't outplay Durant as much as he did.

OKC would not have won a championship with Perkins and Collison as their front line.

Maybe so, but they also certainly weren't going to win a championship with just two scorers on the team, which is what they tried to do the last two years.

And they would have beaten Memphis once Westbrook got hurt in 2013, instead of losing that series 4-1.

Also, both Harden and Ibaka were there in 2012, and Harden wet the bed in that series.

Yes, in the Finals, and LeBron James and Dwyane Wade had a little something to do with that. Struggling against those two isn't exactly something to be ashamed of.

 

[calitennis127]

But Ibaka is a better fit at OKC, especially if Steven Adams continues to improve because together, they can from a pretty good duo.

Ibaka's defense is essential to getting OKC going in the open court, which is where the excel the most.

Not as essential as the game of Durant, Westbrook, and the speed of Reggie Jackson. Ibaka's blocks or shot contests may trigger some fast breaks, but they account for only a small percentage of the overall fast breaks.

Fast breaks are fundamentally about offensive capability more than defense. Harden's passing, scoring, and playmaking would have, on balance, helped OKC's transition game more than the presence of Ibaka.