You know, without even hovering over your link, I'm quite certain I know exactly what it is. I'm actually well aware of the "technically" correct use of the phrase, and I don't care. I use it in the manner in which it is currently employed in modern English usage. Stop being so pedantic. Why not actually address the point (and question) I raised?
You don't care about the question raised in response to your original post in the thread you started? This one of those "typing just to see the pixels from your own keyboard" kinda things?
shooting is just that good right now. especially off the dribble. and trapping/zone defenses don't work as they have to stop multiple threats on the perimeter. Like right now, we have both Dame and Ant who are elite at shooting long distance threes off the bounce. And jerami can space at a top tier percentile in the league. hard for defenses to cope with this many threats. The way to mitigate this would be to reinstate the illegal defense rules of yesteryear, or allow hand checking on the perimeter..... but who wants that?
I still crack up thinking about VG, looking like a Humphrey the Leg Humping Dog with an added flying combover.
55 for giannis tonight 150 for OKC in a blowout win against an almost fully healthy Boston team. And they were missing SGA. what is happening
Given the ridiculous amount of offensive talent and parity in the league, wouldn't it behoove us to pivot and invest most of our $ in defensive stoppers right now?
that's kind of what Olshey was settling for when he added RoCo, Jones, and Nance. but I don't think it works when the stoppers really can't stop consistently, and they are not solid on offense. It stresses any offense to be playing 3-on-5 when you have the ball. The highest value is in two-way players, especially at wings. Of course, getting those types of players is the biggest hurdle
Roco was actually very good his first year. He just fell off a cliff his second year. Nance also was the right kind of player in theory, but his injury prone nature makes him less valuable than assumed. I don't necessarily agree that we HAVE to have all two-way players. I'm thinking moreso about trading away some of our offensive talent for guys who could show up on all defense teams. Ant for OG for example. I've been hesitant in the past to pull the trigger on something like this, but would be open to it now just to zag when other teams are zigging. In the long run, OG could be more valuable because of his lockdown ability than Ant's three pt shooting.
ok...I see where you're coming from Ant for OG has been discussed here. I've never been a big OG fan like a lot of people, so my initial response was negative at this point, I'd be inclined to say that Ant's alleged superior offense has shown up inconsistently, at best. Meanwhile, I'd have to assume that OG's defense shows up much more often. Ant just doesn't have a big advantage on offense, although it's probably hard to gauge his floor-spreading impact I'd be inclined to say that the 'trade' would make Portland a little better team...? Dame-Hart-OG-Grant-Nurk is definitely a better defensive lineup. Would the defensive upgrade be enough to offset the offensive downgrade? and how big a downgrade would it be, really? I sure would not trade both Ant and Sharpe in the deal
Was that a typo? Did you mean to say you would NOT trade both for OG? Because that would be crazy to give them both for OG
