(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

And the key word there is "use" to be truthful. Personally, I think the hot seat is going to force Pastner to be even more bizarre with his use of personnel. The other interesting dynamic will be the Keelon senior factor and if his presence alone will impact who gets playing time. That's not really fair to senior or Pastner but it will be interesting to see what happens.

I will never understand the argument that we shouldn't have taken the better player (for one friggin' year) in favor of ONE young wing who looked completely lost whenever he stepped on the floor.

Playing Kuran over Dixon likely would've resulted in at least 2-3 more losses that year - talk about a distaster.

(04-23-2015 08:22 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  I will never understand the argument that we shouldn't have taken the better player (for one friggin' year) in favor of ONE young wing who looked completely lost whenever he stepped on the floor.

Playing Kuran over Dixon likely would've resulted in at least 2-3 more losses that year - talk about a distaster.

I don't think it's just a Dixon/Kuran issue, but IMO having four senior guards - and playing them the majority of minutes - stunted the growth of the underclassmen who really needed PT. The point to me is the overall roster management; we were totally imbalanced that year. Also, adding grad transfers isn't necessarily a bad thing, however when you have to rely on this influx annually you always assume a level of risk.

Since it's almost time for the NFL Draft, I'll use this comparison: teams that draft well are typically less reliant on high priced free agents and can maintain a consistently high results. Those FA's tilt your salary structure and affect cohesion and consistency.

Again, JMO...

(04-23-2015 08:52 AM)Merrick Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 08:22 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  I will never understand the argument that we shouldn't have taken the better player (for one friggin' year) in favor of ONE young wing who looked completely lost whenever he stepped on the floor.

Playing Kuran over Dixon likely would've resulted in at least 2-3 more losses that year - talk about a distaster.

I don't think it's just a Dixon/Kuran issue, but IMO having four senior guards - and playing them the majority of minutes - stunted the growth of the underclassmen who really needed PT. The point to me is the overall roster management; we were totally imbalanced that year. Also, adding grad transfers isn't necessarily a bad thing, however when you have to rely on this influx annually you always assume a level of risk.

Since it's almost time for the NFL Draft, I'll use this comparison: teams that draft well are typically less reliant on high priced free agents and can maintain a consistently high results. Those FA's tilt your salary structure and affect cohesion and consistency.

Again, JMO...

We disagree, but you use logic in your response, & I appreciate that! but I am curious ...

Who's growth was stunted, other than Kuran's?

FWIW, I'm not saying that taking Dixon didn't come with drawbacks, I'm saying the good outweighed the bad IMO. I firmly believe Dixon added 2-3 wins to our season. That's the difference between a 1st round win in March as the 8-seed & a first round loss in March as a 10 seed.

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

(04-23-2015 09:23 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

All valid points...

so you think we should have turned down Tarrant and ride it out with Kedren? You just can't see how adding Ricky tarrant will improve next year's team?

(04-23-2015 08:52 AM)Merrick Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 08:22 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  I will never understand the argument that we shouldn't have taken the better player (for one friggin' year) in favor of ONE young wing who looked completely lost whenever he stepped on the floor.

Playing Kuran over Dixon likely would've resulted in at least 2-3 more losses that year - talk about a distaster.

I don't think it's just a Dixon/Kuran issue, but IMO having four senior guards - and playing them the majority of minutes - stunted the growth of the underclassmen who really needed PT. The point to me is the overall roster management; we were totally imbalanced that year. Also, adding grad transfers isn't necessarily a bad thing, however when you have to rely on this influx annually you always assume a level of risk.

Since it's almost time for the NFL Draft, I'll use this comparison: teams that draft well are typically less reliant on high priced free agents and can maintain a consistently high results. Those FA's tilt your salary structure and affect cohesion and consistency.

Again, JMO...

Or use a baseball analogy and look at The Cardinals, whose farm system develops a lot of talent. I'm not sure how you turn down Dixon or Johnson, but The Four Kings definitely mortgaged development of younger players.

(04-23-2015 10:02 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:23 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

All valid points...

so you think we should have turned down Tarrant and ride it out with Kedren? You just can't see how adding Ricky tarrant will improve next year's team?

I don't buy the "taking best available." I also don't know who has convinced everyone that Tarrant can play PG. (I guess Parrish did by saying Tarrant is a good ball handler).

It just comes down to what he can provide that fits what the team needs.

In some respects the Tigers are built a lot like the Grizz. The strong points on both are the guys at the 4/5. Conley's role as PG is mostly as a facilitator who can score when needed, but he certainly isn't in the mold of a score-first PG. Lee is a spot shooter, not a volume driver/slasher and Allen is no scoring threat at all--a lockdown perimeter defender.

If one were to take Lee out of the lineup and trade for a guy like Monta Ellis, would that actually make the Grizz better? Most folk would agree (in a vacuum) that Ellis is a better player than Courtney, BUT would he be better for the Grizz?

The same is how I feel about Tarrant. If Josh could find some useful spot shooter (a James Woodard type) I would be cool with that.

It just comes down to (my perception) the idea that the h.c. doesn't know what he wants as his system, except that he wants to get a bunch of guys and then let it shake out.

(04-22-2015 12:42 PM)Easterwood Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:39 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:30 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:26 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Ohhhh, that's why Kuran and Nick didn't develop! because Michael Dixon was taking all the minutes at SF... got it.

That team was better b/c of those 4 experienced guards. Without them I don't want to think of what our season would've been like.

Actually it was Crawford and Geron that got the small forward minutes. The leash was longer for the "FoKingz" than it was for Wilson, Kuran and King. If you can't see that then you are blind. Now maybe we still finish 5th and get curbstomped by UConn and UVA if we played a longer lineup, but maybe not. We know what happened in the other instance. Have a nice day sir.

We have different opinions, that's cool. Nothing personal...

But give me Joe Jackson, Geron Johnson, Chris Crawford, and Michael Dixon to play 3 spots over Joe, Chris, Geron, Damien Wilson, Kuran Iverson.

Actually I thought Dixon was the best of the 4 that year and probably should have started. Josh hasn't developed a single long wing player in his six years here unless you want to count Will Barton. First Spoon, then Adonis, Kuran, Wilson and King. Even Burrell was benched for about half the season. And now we got people penciling in KJ Lawson at the 3 spot? I'll believe it when I see it.

Adonis, Wilson nor King ever played on the perimeter, until they got to Memphis

That was the mistake, they were what they were, undersized 4's

That’s true they were tweeners. But on the flipside Chris & Markel never played the 3/wing until they got to Memphis.

Also many posters are saying Dixon got minutes from King and Iverson, but Dixon played the point. It was Chris who got those minutes. In 3 years Chris played SG and some PG but as a senior he played the 3/wing, a position he never played before.

Same with Markel. When interviewed during his redshirt season he said he had never played PG and was working on it. So where did he get the bulk of his time? Not SG or PG but at the 3/wing. It could also be said that when Kedren, Avery, and Markel played together we really had two 3/wings.

Anyway it’s a catch 22 that we can’t seem to solve or just want to play this way.

(04-22-2015 01:53 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  We've had some success with a 3 guard rotation before.
More of necessity tho....as we had more guards than bigs. (Like when we played in the tourney against Arizona. The only real bigs we had was Spoon and Coleman)

You sure about that? I think there is an NBA player your not including in your summary.

(04-23-2015 10:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:02 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:23 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

All valid points...

so you think we should have turned down Tarrant and ride it out with Kedren? You just can't see how adding Ricky tarrant will improve next year's team?

I don't buy the "taking best available." I also don't know who has convinced everyone that Tarrant can play PG. (I guess Parrish did by saying Tarrant is a good ball handler).

It just comes down to what he can provide that fits what the team needs.

In some respects the Tigers are built a lot like the Grizz. The strong points on both are the guys at the 4/5. Conley's role as PG is mostly as a facilitator who can score when needed, but he certainly isn't in the mold of a score-first PG. Lee is a spot shooter, not a volume driver/slasher and Allen is no scoring threat at all--a lockdown perimeter defender.

If one were to take Lee out of the lineup and trade for a guy like Monta Ellis, would that actually make the Grizz better? Most folk would agree (in a vacuum) that Ellis is a better player than Courtney, BUT would he be better for the Grizz?

The same is how I feel about Tarrant. If Josh could find some useful spot shooter (a James Woodard type) I would be cool with that.

It just comes down to (my perception) the idea that the h.c. doesn't know what he wants as his system, except that he wants to get a bunch of guys and then let it shake out.

I disagree with very little of your analysis and think fit matters.

Having said that, last year didn't work. Tarrant might not be a perfect fit, but he is someone we can 'throw against the wall and see if it sticks'.

I concur on system / fit > raw talent and think your Ellis/Lee comparison shows a real understanding of how fit matters.

But... Tarrant seems to be a good player. I'd prefer more of a plan for fit, but still a good player being added is still good news, even if a good player that fit a specific roster hole would be better news.

We're going to have more talent, but it is up to JP to make it work.

It is what it is.

Concur with your analysis, but I'm going to choose to go 'glass half full' on this one. Can completely see the 'glass half empty' view.

(04-22-2015 12:26 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:23 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:21 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:18 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 12:06 PM)motiger Wrote:  So you are saying that Dixon didn't work out?

Love Dixon but since we finished 5th in the AAC , got beat by double digits on our home floor in the 1st round of the conference tourney, then got an 8 seed; I'd say that didn't work out.

That wasn't b/c Dixon didn't work out. That logic is flawed.

Having 4 guards that all needed major minutes caused our longer wing players to not be developed. So I big to differ.

Ohhhh, that's why Kuran and Nick didn't develop! because Michael Dixon was taking all the minutes at SF... got it.

That team was better b/c of those 4 experienced guards. Without them I don't want to think of what our season would've been like.

I'd like to have seen how much better that team could have been with a coach who knew what the hell he was doing.

I think you take the talent when it's there. It never hurts to have depth and if he isn't a good fit there is this thing called a bench he can ride...or maybe he develops a case of tendinitis. Having said that, I don't like the trend of choosing transfers/grad players over developing our (often highly rated) recruits. Hard to build a program with so many 1-2 year players and constant high volume turnover.

Next year we will have an overall upgrade in talent on the team. However, I only expect to have a marginally better season with a 1st round exit in the tourney being the ceiling (maybe 2nd round). JP hasn't shown the ability to mold a team or develop any sort of identity during the course of a season. Near-Elite/elite talent-->average results; Average talent-->well just look at last season.

I have resigned myself to having low expectations for any JP team no matter who is on the roster. I'm tired of being fully invested as a fan and seeing such mediocre results year in/out. I hope it gets turned around but I have serious doubts. I just don't see the ability to manage people/players from our coach.

Welcome to the circus Ricky Tarrant!!

NBA is always talent over need when drafting.

In college, if you develop your talent then you should rarely have a need.

The problem with this discussion is that talent has been mishandled (i.e. not developed).

I see good effort by the TAMM's in this thread. Keep it going!

(04-24-2015 08:36 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  NBA is always talent over need when drafting.

In college, if you develop your talent then you should rarely have a need.

The problem with this discussion is that talent has been mishandled (i.e. not developed).

Yeah, that's stupid, too. Don't care who does it.


That's why the Grizz took Thabeet over Tyreke, Curry and Rubio. Already had Mike at the PG.

Philly could be in the same trick bag this year. With Noel and Embiid already on the team, if they get the 1st pick, do they pass on Towns and Okafor?

In any event, the main difference is the draft is based on future use, for the most part. This is getting (essentially) a free agent. You generally don't see teams pick up a FA for just a talent grab, it's almost always done to fill a need.

(04-24-2015 09:35 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I see good effort by the TAMM's in this thread. Keep it going!

Spot on analysis. Glad to have that type of insight to really advance discussion.

(04-24-2015 01:48 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:02 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:23 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  We need players, Pastner is getting players. I do wish we were more reliant on stronger freshman classes (easier to develop players for longer times), but we were light in the back court and we got a solid frosh and a very good transfer who is not likely a character risk and played well in his career.

We can quibble about the past season and the recent results, but the guard additions made (Tarrant / Martin) strike me as positive moves.

We now have guard depth we didn't have (use?) last year. The only concern I have is making sure our potential future backcourt starters (Broddie, Martin, Crawford) get enough minutes and we don't play all for 2015-16 with Kedren/Tarrant getting all the minutes and not developing out underclassmen.

Still, that is a rotation issue. We have depth to use now. This is a GOOD thing in my opinion and I think CJP has done a good job to beef up the roster. He's done a good job shopping, let's hope the meal tastes as good as the ingredients...

I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

All valid points...

so you think we should have turned down Tarrant and ride it out with Kedren? You just can't see how adding Ricky tarrant will improve next year's team?

I don't buy the "taking best available." I also don't know who has convinced everyone that Tarrant can play PG. (I guess Parrish did by saying Tarrant is a good ball handler).

It just comes down to what he can provide that fits what the team needs.

In some respects the Tigers are built a lot like the Grizz. The strong points on both are the guys at the 4/5. Conley's role as PG is mostly as a facilitator who can score when needed, but he certainly isn't in the mold of a score-first PG. Lee is a spot shooter, not a volume driver/slasher and Allen is no scoring threat at all--a lockdown perimeter defender.

If one were to take Lee out of the lineup and trade for a guy like Monta Ellis, would that actually make the Grizz better? Most folk would agree (in a vacuum) that Ellis is a better player than Courtney, BUT would he be better for the Grizz?

The same is how I feel about Tarrant. If Josh could find some useful spot shooter (a James Woodard type) I would be cool with that.

It just comes down to (my perception) the idea that the h.c. doesn't know what he wants as his system, except that he wants to get a bunch of guys and then let it shake out.

I disagree with very little of your analysis and think fit matters.

Having said that, last year didn't work. Tarrant might not be a perfect fit, but he is someone we can 'throw against the wall and see if it sticks'.

I concur on system / fit > raw talent and think your Ellis/Lee comparison shows a real understanding of how fit matters.

But... Tarrant seems to be a good player. I'd prefer more of a plan for fit, but still a good player being added is still good news, even if a good player that fit a specific roster hole would be better news.

We're going to have more talent, but it is up to JP to make it work.

It is what it is.

Concur with your analysis, but I'm going to choose to go 'glass half full' on this one. Can completely see the 'glass half empty' view.

I know my rep is as more of a "half empty" guy, but this isn't about glasses empty or full, it's about making the same drink that was nasty the first time, not changing the recipe, making it again and expecting it to taste better.

(04-24-2015 09:45 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  ...
That's why the Grizz took Thabeet over Tyreke, Curry and Rubio. Already had Mike at the PG.
...

Don't forget Harden.

Anyway, you draft for talent high in the draft and draft for need low when the difference in talent is far less pronounced.

(04-24-2015 09:48 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:48 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:02 AM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:23 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I tend to disagree.

Getting players just to get players doesn't solve an issue or necessarily make a team better.

Going into this season, Memphis was set at the 4/5 and has several quality options at the 3, so the front court is absolutely set. Obviously, like last year working inside should be the priority for this team.

If Memphis really needed anything going into this year it was a) a perimeter defender b) an outside shooter and c) another pg in case Kedren isn't where he should be.

Tarrant solves none of those issues. By reliable metrics, he has never been a good defender, he is not a good outside shooter, and he is a high volume shooter--which seems to be opposite of what Memphis needs if the front court is the focus of the offense. As a PG option, he had a 1:1 a/to ratio last year.

People also keep referring to him as a "slasher" though the numbers don't back that up. For his career, more than half of all FG attempts have been from beyond the 3pt arc. Last year, 58% of all his FG attempts were 3 pointers--and he shot 29.9%.

If Austin and Shaq are losing shot attempts because Tarrant is chucking up low percentage three pointers, then that is not a good thing.

By any measure of historical trends, Martin shouldn't play more than 5 mins a game, if at all.

All valid points...

so you think we should have turned down Tarrant and ride it out with Kedren? You just can't see how adding Ricky tarrant will improve next year's team?

I don't buy the "taking best available." I also don't know who has convinced everyone that Tarrant can play PG. (I guess Parrish did by saying Tarrant is a good ball handler).

It just comes down to what he can provide that fits what the team needs.

In some respects the Tigers are built a lot like the Grizz. The strong points on both are the guys at the 4/5. Conley's role as PG is mostly as a facilitator who can score when needed, but he certainly isn't in the mold of a score-first PG. Lee is a spot shooter, not a volume driver/slasher and Allen is no scoring threat at all--a lockdown perimeter defender.

If one were to take Lee out of the lineup and trade for a guy like Monta Ellis, would that actually make the Grizz better? Most folk would agree (in a vacuum) that Ellis is a better player than Courtney, BUT would he be better for the Grizz?

The same is how I feel about Tarrant. If Josh could find some useful spot shooter (a James Woodard type) I would be cool with that.

It just comes down to (my perception) the idea that the h.c. doesn't know what he wants as his system, except that he wants to get a bunch of guys and then let it shake out.

I disagree with very little of your analysis and think fit matters.

Having said that, last year didn't work. Tarrant might not be a perfect fit, but he is someone we can 'throw against the wall and see if it sticks'.

I concur on system / fit > raw talent and think your Ellis/Lee comparison shows a real understanding of how fit matters.

But... Tarrant seems to be a good player. I'd prefer more of a plan for fit, but still a good player being added is still good news, even if a good player that fit a specific roster hole would be better news.

We're going to have more talent, but it is up to JP to make it work.

It is what it is.

Concur with your analysis, but I'm going to choose to go 'glass half full' on this one. Can completely see the 'glass half empty' view.

I know my rep is as more of a "half empty" guy, but this isn't about glasses empty or full, it's about making the same drink that was nasty the first time, not changing the recipe, making it again and expecting it to taste better.

One clarification. I do not see you as a 'half empty' guy. Just analytical, and I've always (as you are likely aware) respected that.

Our disagreement isn't in principle (we both think roster management is a little more delicate and subtle than 'best available'), but in circumstance.

JP needs more wins to save his job. He probably figures that the overall quality of an addition like Tarrant is worth having a skill set that may clash with some personnel / scheme issues (ex: getting a high profile transfer who might be best driving while simultaneously building your offense around low post and hi/low play of Nichols/Shaq/Dedric that would crowd lane/spacing for same).

He probably figures it's all 'hands on deck' and having top level talent that doesn't fit is better than having mid level talent that doesn't fit.

In a perfect world, the roster would be more balanced with more shooting, but we live in a less than perfect world...