NBA 2015 | Offseason | 🏀🎪

I had dreams involving the future, looking back on basketball, and commenting on Kevin Durant's lack of rings.

Was this a prophecy.

Jazz's Trey Burke 'hungry as I've ever been'

"Right now, I’m as hungry as I’ve ever been, to be honest with you," Burke said. Unfortuantely, that hunger led to a blocked shot by Hakeem Olajuwon during the NBA's first exhibition game in Africa over the weekend, in case you missed it:

Stop rubbing it in

but at least he has a great attitude!

By thekad Go To PostSkill translates better than athletic potential. Obviously having both is preferred.

Don't agree with this at fucking all...

Pretty sure that I won GAF today guys. Not really how I wanted to, but whatevs.

The Trey Burke future has me upset. Maybe he'll average 25-10-6, right? I mean, yes?

Marshon Brooks taking his talents to China.

I remember Bulls fan ready to riot we draft both of Mirotic and Jimmy instead that dude

I remember MarShon tearing up summer league a year ago.

Always surprised me had success overseas when he seemed like a get-my-shots guy.

By Jeff-DSA Go To PostPretty sure that I won GAF today guys. Not really how I wanted to, but whatevs.

The Trey Burke future has me upset. Maybe he'll average 25-10-6, right? I mean, yes?

Did tou figure out what you're going to do? Lol

What did you do, Jeff?

By thekad Go To PostSkill translates better than athletic potential. Obviously having both is preferred.

By DY_nasty Go To PostDon't agree with this at fucking all…

This is a great debate... Because you have guys like Curry who basically prove that quote to be true and then you have guys like Adam Morrison who basically shit all over that quote..

I'd argue that Curry is the exception whereas players like Adam Morrison are closer to the norm.

By reilo Go To PostI'd argue that Curry is the exception whereas players like Adam Morrison are closer to the norm.

Kevin Love, Shane Battier, Ryan Anderson.. are other good examples.. It goes both ways for every LeBron there is 5 Stromile Swifts

None of those guys you listed are undersized for their position and their skillset translated really well to today's NBA. I'd also argue that Battier is strong as hell.

Curry truly is the exception because he's undersized for his position, and he's nowhere the athlete that the position is loaded with.

I had a dream the other day that Harden shaved his beard and lost all of his foul drawing powers. It was horrible.

I think there's cases for both really. The Gasol bros made good careers and so has Dwight.

The conclusion is, scouting is hard.

By reilo Go To PostNone of those guys you listed are undersized for their position and their skillset translated really well to today's NBA. I'd also argue that Battier is strong as hell.

Curry truly is the exception because he's undersized for his position, and he's nowhere the athlete that the position is loaded with.

you might be wrong...

Ryan Anderson isnt undersized but is not athletic..

By Moris Go To PostThe conclusion is, scouting is hard.

Do you think the relationship between skill and athleticism changes depending on position?

By Fenderputty Go To PostDo you think the relationship between skill and athleticism changes depending on position?

SG seem to need athleticism the most....

So Battier was an average athlete for his position coming into the league? How does that make him unathletic? :confused:

I don't think people realize how much of an athletic deficit Curry has over other pointguards. Battier clearly doesn't.

By reilo Go To PostSo Battier was an average athlete for his position coming into the league? How does that make him unathletic? :confused:

I don't think people realize how much of an athletic deficit Curry has over other pointguards. Battier clearly doesn't.

Curry is an average athlete.. but plays at an elite level.. so did Battier

Let's compare his combine to Rose and Westbrook...

No step vertical jump:
Rose: 34.5
Russ: 30
Curry: 29.5

Maximum vertical jump
Rose: 40
Russ: 36.5
Curry: 35.5

Lane Agility:
Rose: 11.69
Russ: 10.98
Curry: 11.07

3/4 Court Sprint
Rose: 3.05
Russ: 3.08
Curry: 3.28

Bench Press
Rose: 10
Russ: 12
Curry: 10

Curry is a smaller player for sure... but athleticism he isn't crippled.. Even compared to Wall he stacked up aiight..
And now they are saying he can deadlift 400lbs?
But those small lessers make him not athletic in the NBA but it's not by a WIDE margin..

I guess I just don't fundamentally understand some of the athleticism semantics that get thrown around. Is that just the ability to do certain physical things versus the refinement of technical skills or what.

Curry is quicker than he gets credit for and has gotten his body in top shape since joining the league. His otherworldly ability to hit off balance shots like its nothing and his handle negates any physical ability he may lack. So yeah while he is the guy who used his skills to overcome his athletic shortcomings...his skills are some next level shit. Evan Turner has fantastic handle and technically can get any shot he wants...his jumper is so broke tho so his lack of explosion is a major problem (he also is an asshole). So skills can make up for lack of athletic ability but your skills have to be seriously on point whereas there are a ton of dudes who are awful basketball players technically but can get burn by just being freak athletes...to continue my former Sixer kick, KJ is/was pretty bad at basic basketball things but his jumping ability changed the game at times for us as he could get a crazy block or oop and get the team going (until Hinkie made the call), had he been just a solid athlete with the same lack of skill...eeehh (also probably still woud be here).

So yeah, not sure if I am on the skills > athleticism wagon unless that skill is legit and transfers and even then it needs to be damn near elite..otherwise you probably take the shot on the athlete gaining atleast one skill worth a damn before the "specialist" who
skill may not work all the time.

<3 Zach Lowe for even giving the Jazz attention

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-lowe-post-podcast-amin-elhassan-on-dante-exum-and-the-jazz-the-sixers-and-other-intriguing-teams/

His take on Exum/Burke last year is spot-on.

Yeah, Curry isn't exactly a bum athlete. He's at least Nash level - he can beat a guy off the dribble consistently enough. It never got shown off in college because teams were literally hitting him with Triangle+2 defense off-ball. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283302166

His athleticism got overshadowed by what his enormous skillset portrayed.

If anyone was a huge skillset/shit athlete, it was JJ.

By DY_nasty Go To PostYeah, Curry isn't exactly a bum athlete. He's at least Nash level - he can beat a guy off the dribble consistently enough. It never got shown off in college because teams were literally hitting him with Triangle+2 defense off-ball. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283302166

His athleticism got overshadowed by what his enormous skillset portrayed.

If anyone was a huge skillset/shit athlete, it was JJ.

If JJ could dribble he'd be much better...

myself Ithink of players in 3 areas

athleticism that's what you learn at the combine and see with your eyes

skills shooting dribbling and so on

physical tools height wingspan and so on


some overlap of course like athleticism and skills because you have to be a great athlete to have good footwork or whatever

Can't wait for jazz fans to excuse an under achieving season because of Dante fukin Exum

"Didnt attack the paint because he didn't want to step on toes" with one of the most selfless starting units in basketball " Smh

So now the bar's been reduced to "shit athlete"? I thought this was about picking really skilled players over really athletic ones. Not saying anyone with even a shred of athleticism counts as an athlete.

IMO Skill ABSOLUTELY translates more than athletic potential. Jeremy Evans has off the charts athleticism. So does Wes Johnson. Harden on the other hand, is a good athlete but plays mainly below the rim and is incredibly skilled. That's why I had more confidence in Rubio than Exum.

Non-skilled athletic potential guys are the worst guys to draft. Dudes like Lebron and Wiggins and Melo came in with a very polished set of skills for their age so they don't count.

If we start placing guys like Nash and Curry and Battier In the "athletic" column - we've completely changed the argument.

Like, this Russell/Mudiay dynamic is going to be interesting. If Mudiay is as good, or better as a floor general and passer than Russell, that dynamic switches fast. That's just piss poor scouting. But if Russell shows his shot and his passing to be as good as everyone thought, he'll have a leg up over Mudiay - it's just that neither of those two skills were impressive so far. (His defense is solid though)

Jeremy Evans' athleticism made him so fun to watch. I wish he had managed to progress into a big minutes player. Remember when he stole Turiaf's soul twice in 5 seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEYhkWNRVI

By Dark PhaZe Go To PostCan't wait for jazz fans to excuse an under achieving season because of Dante fukin Exum

"Didnt attack the paint because he didn't want to step on toes" with one of the most selfless starting units in basketball " Smh

Bruh if there is an "excuse" its just blaming Burke, which would probably be accurate.

"Hey, Trey, you're the PG, but just let Burks handle the ball all the time. Ok? Good."

I'm pretty excited to have Alec Burks back. He was looking so good before he went down.

Hayward is our point, Trey just has to not be total shit on defense and waste possessions on Offense. Which is probably too much to ask.

I don't think he'll be THAT bad. He'll be frustrating, sure, but I don't think he'll turn us into the Sixers on his own.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/lamarcus-aldridge-says-hes-building-a-separate-house-just-for-his-shoe-collection/

LaMarcus Aldridge has a lot of shoes. He can certainly afford them — he’s made around $86 million in his nine-year NBA career so far and just signed a four-year, $84 million deal with the Spurs. And being a Jordan Brand athlete, he gets a lot of them for free, too. But just how many pairs does the four-time All-Star have? So many that he’s working on building a separate house just to hold them, according to a new interview with SLAM.

By db Go To Posthttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/lamarcus-aldridge-says-hes-building-a-separate-house-just-for-his-shoe-collection/

I greatly offended my friend's father when I said I'd be fine with the ultra-wealthy being taxed at 70% or more.

Stuff like this just reinforces those feelings.

LAMARCUS IS A JOB CREATOR, HOW DARE YOU.

That isn't that uncommon. He's essentially just building a storage unit in his backyard.

By psychintellect Go To PostThat isn't that uncommon. He's essentially just building a storage unit in his backyard.

1. I've never heard of this.

2. Even if it is as common as you claim it's still extremely stupid.

By KingGondo Go To Post1. I've never heard of this.

2. Even if it is as common as you claim it's still extremely stupid.

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/los-angeles-lakers-nick-young-shoe-house-shoe-keepers-011415

*shrug*

why not just let Hayward run the offense? Let Burks play the 1 purely as a guy who can score with some efficiency and defend the position.

Burks, Hood, Hayward, Favors, Gobert?

By KingGondo Go To PostI greatly offended my friend's father when I said I'd be fine with the ultra-wealthy being taxed at 70% or more.

Stuff like this just reinforces those feelings.

Damn, that's kinda messed up. A man earns 100M and you want to leave him with 30M?

There are better ways of handling that than just taxing them like crazy

By Dark PhaZe Go To Post*shrug*

why not just let Hayward run the offense? Let Burks play the 1 purely as a guy who can score with some efficiency and defend the position.

Burks, Hood, Hayward, Favors, Gobert?

I would like to see this and i bet it will be experimented with.

I think Snyder is a smart coach and isnt afraid to try new things. If we miss the playoffs its just because the West is so tough.

By KingGondo Go To PostI greatly offended my friend's father when I said I'd be fine with the ultra-wealthy being taxed at 70% or more.

Stuff like this just reinforces those feelings.

i don't why but Giannis saying in an interview that lots of players buy a PS4 and 2k in every city they go to and then leave it in the hotel room because they can't be bothered to pack it in made me realize how much money these guys have lol.

By KingGondo Go To Post1. I've never heard of this.

2. Even if it is as common as you claim it's still extremely stupid.

I nearly built a building in my backyard (we're on a little more than a half acre lot) for my pinball and arcade collection. I was days away from breaking ground when I backed out, because I don't make LMA money and I actually was concerned that people would try to break in once they realized that it was a building full of pinball and arcade machines.

By AlphaSnacks Go To PostDamn, that's kinda messed up. A man earns 100M and you want to leave him with 30M?

There are better ways of handling that than just taxing them like crazy

That's not how progressive taxation works, but for the record:
- that kind of income comes at the expense of other people's income, distribution of wealth is not God's way of giving you shit, it is man-made, arbitrary, the result of positions of power.
- the highest tax bracket on income tax was above 90% for more than 2 decades in the US.
- you'll be fine with 30M. Chill.

By Gabyskra Go To Postthat kind of income comes at the expense of other people's income

That's not exactly how macroeconomics works.

By diehard Go To PostThat's not exactly how macroeconomics works.

That sentence makes no sense. That's like saying "that's not how sociology works", as if these fields of research were objects of investigation, and not a discipline.
What's your craft? Mine's history, for a living, but let's talk econ if you want.

But yeah, put simply, if an employer pays you less to make more, what I say is precisely what happens. Huge income is the result of power, not merit. The idea that there's a supreme being with a capital I and a capital H is not my school of thought. It's a 18th century superstition, that some shill economists believe in, but not all. No consensus in macro. Or maybe you're thinking of the IS/LM model? Which does not deal with the source of wealth.

I'm head of marketing at my job, but we can talk big city infrastructure if it pleases.

I had that moment last year where my raise bumped me up just enough to leave me with less money at the end of the year due to missing some tax credits and paying more.