or a player that the former coach was forcing into a role that didn't maximize his talent. That would go a long ways in explaining why the Blazers believed Hart wouldn't re-sign with Portland
Agreed. It's not like Hart couldn't score. He just understood he was last in priority of getting shots & the team needed him to focus on defense/rebounding. He did exactly what the team wanted him to do.
Can someone explain to me how Hart missing open 3's in Portland or making them in New York, has anything to do with coaching?
If we're using one game sample sizes: I think it's safe to say Thybulle goes in the exact opposite category.
Several weeks ago I was suggesting bringing Hart off the bench. He was definitely one of the best 5 players on the team- but his skill set would have been better used off the bench
I think I mentioned this thought in another thread, but I will also mention it here. To me, it's unsurprising if either Josh Hart or Gary Payton II improve their play with their new teams. Both the Knicks and Warriors were trading for fit. We were trading for asset acquisition. And the issue isn't that we didn't love Josh Hart or he wouldn't re-sign with us. The issue was he was due a payday we didn't have the luxury of giving him. In our competitive arc, the market value of what he did for us was going to further hamstring this team's cap/tax situation. I will always cheer for Josh Hart.
no...don't think so. He was able to show other facets of his skills and game. His value was low because of an expiring contract and being a rather marginal starting level talent. He's an established player; other teams know his scoring ability. I think other teams also could see that Billups was doing his thing which seems to be shaving chunks off of square pegs so they will fit in round holes my estimation is that Hart wasn't going to re-sign in Portland because of the role Chauncey forced on him. Portland knew that, and likely other teams knew it as well. That's what may have limited his value besides his contract Blazers did get that 1st round pick and that's good value by the way. Yeah, the conditions on the pick are a worry because of the play-in
We saw what Josh could do last season but his role was different this year as the 5th option on offense. Glad he's able to show what he has in NYC.
Not really but he wasn't he wasn't necessarily looking to create for himself besides fast breaking to the rim from one end to the other. He shot fourteen times last night. Primary scorer off the bench.
So would that qualify as the 6th option, or the 1st 2nd option? Not being snarky, just wondering how they rank the "option" for a bench player (I think he would've been much better off the bench here)
