Childress to return to the NBA?

but I can assure you that Martell did not usually take them with a hand in his face. Usually he enjoyed wide open looks from the side as the D collapsed on Roy's drives, and those were the same sort of looks that Batum benefited from last season. I'm sure that JChildress would know what to do with those sorts of looks as well.

Also, I'm not sure why you doubt Nic's ability to be a volume 3 point shooter alla Martell, as the stats I posted indicate he's almost there already as a 19 year old rookie.

STOMP

 

Isn't that quite beneficial, though? It means less double teams on Roy, Aldridge and Oden. The idea was to have guys who can knock down the open perimeter shots off defenses collapsing on those three players. That's all Webster was doing. He wasn't drilling shots over tight defense or creating for himself. He was spotting up for kick-outs off double-teams that left him open.

I see no reason why Childress or Batum can't knock down most or all of the wide open shots Webster was. Despite not creating shots against tight defense, Webster had an underwhelming field goal percentage and three point percentage.

 

He is a bit of a Battier type. I still view Batum as the future but Childress could be that 6th man in the role of Outlaw, except JChill actually has a decent IQ.

Upgrade!

 

you might be right, but then again players stats go up and down throughout the season. Travis was shooting a ridiculously high % from deep early on and was putting it up at least as often as he was later on.

IMO 2% is relatively nothing

STOMP

 

I just don't see Childress as a big upgrade to what we already have at SF. Just let Batum and webster fight it out in Training camp. The only way I want to bring in a SF is if it is an undebateable upgrade. I am not sure that we can get one of those, but as we always say around here, "in KP we trust".

 

But he won't play SG here, we have Roy. He also only shot 4 FT's a game and average under 2 assisys a game his last year in the NBA. His assist to TO ratio was close to 1. I will say it again, he is not a difference maker for this team

 

Our difference makers are Roy, Aldridge, and hopefully Oden.

We already have the centerpieces. We need the mortar in between the bricks. Childress, assuming he's healthy (torn acl?), would be one of the best additions we could make at SF.

 

so I compiled some stats normalized out to 36 minutes from our three incumbent SFs and JChildress. I used the 2007-8 stats from Josh and Martell and last seasons from Batum and Outlaw. I bolded the winner in each category and underlined the stat of the outright loser. For ties in a category I let both guys share the notation

name-PER-FG%-3Pt%-FT%-TS%-FTA-RBs-Asst-Stl-Pnts
JC - 17.8 -57%-37% -81% -65%- 4.4-5.9-1.9 - 1.1- 14.2
MW- 12.0-42%- 39%-74%-55%-2.8- 5.0- 1.5-0.7 -13.5
NB - 12.9 -45%-37%-81%-56%-1.3 -5.4 -1.8- 1.2 - 10.5
TO - 15.1 -45%-38%-72%-54%-3.9-5.3- 1.3- 0.8 - 16.6

so Josh leads in 7 out of 10 categories. The only category he trails the pack is 3pt% where he's all of 2% behind category leader Martell (who had the most lasts with 4). It's also my opinion that his D is much much better then Travis and Martell's. Basically these are good reasons to think dude might be a difference maker for this team despite how many times azsun67 might say otherwise

STOMP

 

I agree it's no guarantee that Childress or Batum would struggle to shoot a good percentage if they were asked to take more of them ... it's just a hypothesis. I'm certainly no Webster apologist; he's been pretty underwhelming as a shooting specialist. And any attention they could draw away from Roy or Aldridge is always to the good.

Hey you know me, I was one of the biggest proponents of bringing Childress here awhile back ... I'm just not as convinced as I once was that he's the right move now.

 

I freely admit it's a doubt founded in nothing else besides a hunch or a guess. I want to see the 4 attempts per game and see him hit the same percentage before I'd say he could do it for sure or not.

 

Same...you and I were the biggest Childress proponents. I still like him as much, but Batum's impressive rookie season has decreased the need I see for a good small forward. I'd rather use the team's various resources to land a big point guard upgrade. But if a point guard upgrade wasn't possible, or just cap space was needed to get it (Andre Miller), then I'd be pretty on board with solidifying the small forward position conclusively by getting Childress.

 

Absolutely agree. Of course you'd have to move Travis at a minimum and probably Martel too (otherwise you're wasting your resources) to find the appropriate amount of minutes for both Nic and Childress, but assuming no major moves are made this offseason except to get us a veteran banger to backup LaMarcus and the point rotation is left alone (which I frankly can't see happening -- some movement will occur). Then getting JC would be a solid get; I'm always in favor of adding smart talented players to the roster.

 

I am not saying he is bad, just not a difference maker at SF. There I said it again. I don't want to use up any of our resources for the starting position that needs the least attention on this team. If you had to rank the areas that this team needs to address, how high would starting SF or SF depth be on that list? For me unless we are going to bring in a big upgrade, SF is not a concern of mine. Lets use our resources (and Paul Allens $$) somewhere else. Which would disappoint you more, having MW or NB being our starting SF or Blake being our starting PG next year.

 

From another thread, it looks like hoopsworld also likes what they see in NB.

SF: Nicolas Batum. A skinny kid from France who gets little or no recognition. Does the gritty work for the Blazers, so as the likes of Roy and Aldridge can do the glitzy part. Potentially an elite lockdown wing defender, he has guarded some of the top players already in his fledgling career. Needs to work on his three point shooting, but his 45% field goal and 80% free throw numbers are a welcome addition. His season high? Unquestionably his 7-8 20 point outburst against New Jersey, followed closely by his 6-6 (3-3 from deep) showing against LA in December. An unsung hero.

oops I almost forgot, I don't think JC is a difference maker. (just having fun)

 

I met Childress in January at the Munich airport, we were on the same plane coming back to Philly. Cool guy, took some pics etc.

 

I like Miller as a player.

I like Childress as a player.

They will not work out well together in that starting lineup.

The spacing would be poor. The results would be congestion in the paint, Roy devolving into a spot up shooter, LaMarcus taking a career record number of 3 pt shots and 2pt 20 footers, and heavy minutes for bench players that can stroke the long ball.

If we ended up with these players during our rebuilding phase, that would be ok. To actively seek them out knowing it makes the roster flawed, is a mistake.

 

This is my thinking too, you can't really have Miller and Childress on the floor at the same time, we'd have a starting lineup with only two decent to good perimeter threats; one would be Brandon and the other would be our power forward, who I would prefer focus more on his post game rather than becoming Baby Sheed to the point where he's a primary 3 point shooter.

I do think you could use Childress as long as you had a point guard who can hit an open jumper or three point shot, so assuming nothing was done with Blake (ugh) or if a guy like Conley, Kidd, et al. was traded for (who has turned into a great three point shooter) it could be workable.

 

I don't agree. I still think Webster is being heavily overrated as a shooter, probably because it's the only thing he can do. He was shooting open shots, because he can't create for himself, and he still has only hit 37% from three point territory. Childress has hit at 36%. Since both shoot threes when they're open, I don't consider the "volume" argument to be very meaningful. They're both average shooters. Webster may look better doing it, but his results aren't superior to Childress. Batum also shoots at the same rate, and he doesn't even have the volume argument on his side. Childress would not hurt the spacing or the perimeter shooting.

Miller would. However, Miller is a good mid-range jump-shooter so he can score without congesting the paint. I think his defense and distributing skill is well worth his worse outside shooting.

I think Childress and Miller allow Roy and Aldridge to continue playing to their strengths.