whats with people thinking the bucks will be good i think that roster is trash. a bunch of bums besides illlyasova and 2 chuckers who dont play any defence.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Battle for 8
Collapse
X
-
sleepz wrote: View PostEverything needs to go right for the Raps to have a shot at the 8th seed.
Nothing worng with optimism but reality wins out the majority of the time.
They won 23 games last year no? They've added players but I'd be hard pressed to say any of them are game changers as JV is not ready to be that type of player, yet.
The 06/07 team had Chris Bosh. There is no one on this team as good as he was.
It's nice to have complimentary players but elite talent wins in this league. It would be great if Lowry could take that kind of jump but it's hard to envision that.
I don't think that is a great argument but I do agree with you the Raps need a lot of things to go their way to make the playoffs.
Since Bosh wasn't a truly elite talent, I think I would rather roll with the team as currently constructed (i.e. depth and youth) versus most of the Bosh teams (i.e. significant talent drop off). The wild card is Casey is the best coach the Raptors have had in the last 6 years.Last edited by mcHAPPY; Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:59 PM.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostDenver had a really big star in Carmelo yet are somehow doing just as good without him. *EDIT* I see I am late to the part and Denver has already been discussed, scratch that. I do agree Denver has much more talent than Toronto right now as a direct result of getting a great package for their star player*
I don't think that is a great argument but I do agree with you the Raps need a lot of things to go their way to make the playoffs.
Since Bosh wasn't a truly elite talent, I think I would rather roll with the team as currently constructed (i.e. depth and youth) versus most of the Bosh teams (i.e. significant talent drop off). The wild card is Casey is the best coach the Raptors have had in the last 6 years.
For me, the new players (Lowry, JV, Ross, Fields) need to be the difference, because the old regime (Bargnani, Derozan, Johnson, Calderon) leave much to be desired imo.
Casey can only do so much. Even good coaches need talent to win.
Comment
-
sleepz wrote: View PostBargnani is nowhere near the player Bosh was then or now.
I don't think teams are as worried about Andrea as you think.@Chr1st1anL
Comment
-
sleepz wrote: View PostBargnani is nowhere near the player Bosh was then or now.
I don't think teams are as worried about Andrea as you think.
As already mentioned, Bosh only got doubled because of where he set up his offense -- some teams double the high post regardless of who's playing it because of its low-risk high-reward prospects. Not so with big's sitting on the 3-point line.
In terms of just straight player comparisons, while Bargnani doesn't have the first step and finishing ability that Bosh had, he's a much better shooter, with deeper range, which is significant in terms of match-up problems. And defensively, they both suck: Bosh is the better help defender; Bargs is the better man defender.
I realize this isn't completely on-topic, but in a way it's actually quite relevant. One way of answering the "will we make the playoffs?" question is by comparing ourselves to years past when we did, and any time that happens the underlying suggestion is that we might be in the same unfortunate position as those Bosh-era teams. In other words, are we just back at square 1? And I think the answer is a much more hopeful "No".
EDIT: I didn't really make that last pgh. clear. We're not just in a better position than the Bosh-era teams because Bargs is as good as Bosh was. We're in a better position (and the comparison is accordingly relevant) because this team isn't constructed AROUND Bargs -- a player who, like Bosh, simply isn't good enough to be built around.Last edited by themasao; Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:12 AM.
Comment
-
themasao wrote: View PostI disagree. I think teams are very worried about Andrea (have you ever heard Stan Van Gundy talk about trying to cover him? He literally insults his own players in the process) and the ones that aren't often get shredded as a result (see: Utah).
As already mentioned, Bosh only got doubled because of where he set up his offense -- some teams double the high post regardless of who's playing it because of its low-risk high-reward prospects. Not so with big's sitting on the 3-point line.
In terms of just straight player comparisons, while Bargnani doesn't have the first step and finishing ability that Bosh had, he's a much better shooter, with deeper range, which is significant in terms of match-up problems. And defensively, they both suck: Bosh is the better help defender; Bargs is the better man defender.
I realize this isn't completely on-topic, but in a way it's actually quite relevant. One way of answering the "will we make the playoffs?" question is by comparing ourselves to years past when we did, and any time that happens the underlying suggestion is that we might be in the same unfortunate position as those Bosh-era teams. In other words, are we just back at square 1? And I think the answer is a much more hopeful "No".
EDIT: I didn't really make that last pgh. clear. We're not just in a better position than the Bosh-era teams because Bargs is as good as Bosh was. We're in a better position (and the comparison is accordingly relevant) because this team isn't constructed AROUND Bargs -- a player who, like Bosh, simply isn't good enough to be built around.
Agree with you that the team should be in a better position to succeed now the way it is constructed, as opposed to the days of Bosh when it was built around him.
Comment
-
Mediumcore wrote: View PostBut doesn't the fact that Bosh could command a double team because he has the ability to play in the post which as you mentioned is low risk and high reward make him more valuable? I'd have to say Bosh is a MUCH better mid range shooter than Bargnani is a long range shooter, so really the match up problems Andrea poses depends on whether his shot is on that particular night or not. If both Bosh and Andrea are having off shooting nights there is still a much better chance that the mid range shooter will be able to make a better percentage of shots than does the 3 point shooter. Also, the distance between Andrea and the basket and Bosh and the basket are vastly different giving Bosh the easier avenue to the basket should either player chose to drive it to the basket. Just saying.
Agree with you that the team should be in a better position to succeed now the way it is constructed, as opposed to the days of Bosh when it was built around him.@Chr1st1anL
Comment
-
Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostBargnani is pretty good midrange shooter too. I wouldn't call Bargnani a shooter necessary. I would say his a scorer.
Comment
-
Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostBargnani is pretty good midrange shooter too. I wouldn't call Bargnani a shooter necessary. I would say his a scorer.
Bosh, on the other hand, shot 45.5% from 16 feet and beyond during his final year in Toronto.Last edited by Nilanka; Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:26 AM.
Comment
-
themasao wrote: View PostI disagree. I think teams are very worried about Andrea (have you ever heard Stan Van Gundy talk about trying to cover him? He literally insults his own players in the process) and the ones that aren't often get shredded as a result (see: Utah).
As already mentioned, Bosh only got doubled because of where he set up his offense -- some teams double the high post regardless of who's playing it because of its low-risk high-reward prospects. Not so with big's sitting on the 3-point line.
In terms of just straight player comparisons, while Bargnani doesn't have the first step and finishing ability that Bosh had, he's a much better shooter, with deeper range, which is significant in terms of match-up problems. And defensively, they both suck: Bosh is the better help defender; Bargs is the better man defender.
I realize this isn't completely on-topic, but in a way it's actually quite relevant. One way of answering the "will we make the playoffs?" question is by comparing ourselves to years past when we did, and any time that happens the underlying suggestion is that we might be in the same unfortunate position as those Bosh-era teams. In other words, are we just back at square 1? And I think the answer is a much more hopeful "No".
EDIT: I didn't really make that last pgh. clear. We're not just in a better position than the Bosh-era teams because Bargs is as good as Bosh was. We're in a better position (and the comparison is accordingly relevant) because this team isn't constructed AROUND Bargs -- a player who, like Bosh, simply isn't good enough to be built around.
Imo, there is no comparison to even be made.
Comment
Comment