Is Vasquez the long term answer?

You guys are really making an impression nationally. I was listening to the Maryland/Virginia game today in my car. The commentators mentioned how some of you guys are questioning whether or not GV is the a part of the long term future. They think you guys are nuts. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

You guys are really making an impression nationally. I was listening to the Maryland/Virginia game today in my car. The commentators mentioned how some of you guys are questioning whether or not GV is the a part of the long term future. They think you guys are nuts. I agree.

---

It's sad really. The fan base is always pushing for someone new. The Hornets are on pace to win 30-35 games this season assuming no real health problems sparks up for the rest of the reason and that's great progress for the team assuming how thing turned out early on in the season.

Add an impact SF and a quality low post scorer off the bench and we could be pushing 50 games next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nola Hornet

It's sad really. The fan base is always pushing for someone new. The Hornets are on pace to win 30-35 games this season assuming no real health problems sparks up for the rest of the reason and that's great progress for the team assuming how thing turned out early on in the season.

Add an impact SF and a quality low post scorer off the bench and we could be pushing 50 games next season.

---

I know it's crazy! At first a lot on fans were convinced Rivers was going to start over him at PG. LMAO! Now that he has clearly beat Rivers out of the spot, I think a lot people on this board are just angry that he is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

I know it's crazy! At first a lot on fans were convinced Rivers was going to start over him at PG. LMAO! Now that he has clearly beat Rivers out of the spot, I think a lot people on this board are just angry that he is better.

---

I don't think it's that. Gravy has some glaring weaknesses; always will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

I don't think it's that. Gravy has some glaring weaknesses; always will.

---

Who doesn't???

I remember CP3 glaring weaknesses - he couldn't shoot and he's 6" tall. But that kid's will to win made up for any weaknesses he had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

I know it's crazy! At first a lot on fans were convinced Rivers was going to start over him at PG. LMAO! Now that he has clearly beat Rivers out of the spot, I think a lot people on this board are just angry that he is better.

---

With all due respect you are wrong. People are frustrated because of the turnovers, nonexistant defense, lack of efficiency shhoting the ball, and the lack of ball movement. Gravy is not a bad player, but he will not lead this team to the promised land. Either this roster needs to be drastically improved around him, or we need an upgrade. I want to keep Gravy, but im going to need to see more improvement (he has improved alot already). I can only hope this is the last tank i suffer through for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

I remember CP3 glaring weaknesses - he couldn't shoot and he's 6" tall. But that kid's will to win made up for any weaknesses he had.

---

Please..
Our definition of 'glaring' is miles apart. Chris Paul was still drafted top 5. That's not a glaring weakness if you're still being drafted that high IMO. I'm a fan of gravy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJackisangry

With all due respect you are wrong. People are frustrated because of the turnovers, nonexistant defense, lack of efficiency shhoting the ball, and the lack of ball movement. Gravy is not a bad player, but he will not lead this team to the promised land. Either this roster needs to be drastically improved around him, or we need an upgrade. I want to keep Gravy, but im going to need to see more improvement (he has improved alot already). I can only hope this is the last tank i suffer through for a while.

---

I don't agree with him but I think some of his issues are overblown.

1. In terms of turnovers, while it does seem high, he's right around all the players who handles/create as much as he does.
2. Efficiency isn't an issue. While he did have a poor start, his efficiency is trending upward and has been pretty good since Gordon returned.
3. Defense. While he lacks the tools to be a good defender, some of you guys act like he's an absolute liability or he doesn't put forth the effort. While his defense is not his strongsuit. it's not as bad as people want to believe.
4. Ball Movement isn't his issue. It's just the team's weakness. You've seen how bad we move the ball without Vasquez or Gordon in the line up. It's just the make up of our roster.

The biggest problem I see with people here is expectations. People are looking at him like a #1 or #2 option on a championship team. That's not reasonable to believe or expect. He can be valuable as a 4th or 5th option on championship team with Rivers balancing him out assuming he develops into what Williams/Demps believes he will.

I just get it... Maybe I'm watching another team. IMO, GV is one of the three best player on our team. He is 2nd amongst PGs in rebounds. He is 6'6 so alters a lot of shoots of the opposing PG and he switches from 1 to 4 without creating much any mismatches. To me, that helps our defense. The only time this team struggles is when the bench comes in. It's not even close. What are you guys watching???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

You guys are really making an impression nationally. I was listening to the Maryland/Virginia game today in my car. The commentators mentioned how some of you guys are questioning whether or not GV is the a part of the long term future. They think you guys are nuts. I agree.

---

I'm sure the commentators weren't Maryland biased at all... :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nola Hornet

I don't agree with him but I think some of his issues are overblown.

1. In terms of turnovers, while it does seem high, he's right around all the players who handles/create as much as he does.
2. Efficiency isn't an issue. While he did have a poor start, his efficiency is trending upward and has been pretty good since Gordon returned.
3. Defense. While he lacks the tools to be a good defender, some of you guys act like he's an absolute liability or he doesn't put forth the effort. While his defense is not his strongsuit. it's not as bad as people want to believe.
4. Ball Movement isn't his issue. It's just the team's weakness. You've seen how bad we move the ball without Vasquez or Gordon in the line up. It's just the make up of our roster.

The biggest problem I see with people here is expectations. People are looking at him like a #1 or #2 option on a championship team. That's not reasonable to believe or expect. He can be valuable as a 4th or 5th option on championship team with Rivers balancing him out assuming he develops into what Williams/Demps believes he will.

---

I agree with almost everything you say here. His defense is no worse than Jennings'. When Greivis forces himself to be the third option, he is very efficient and still puts up nice production numbers.

The only thing that hurts us that he will not be able to improve on is footspeed. I don't think it is that huge of a drawback on defense, except in transition. He is not going to be getting a chase-down block anytime soon. On offense, his lack of quickness allows the other team to put extra on-ball pressure against him which forces us to go into our plays with even less time on the shotclock than normal (and sometimes results in terrible turnovers).

He is able to use his height and nice shot in the halfcourt to make up for that break-away speed. He is good at getting the ball up high enough on his drives and floaters that the defender doesn't have much of a chance to alter it. And he is pretty damn good at converting those shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC-Hornet

You guys are really making an impression nationally. I was listening to the Maryland/Virginia game today in my car. The commentators mentioned how some of you guys are questioning whether or not GV is the a part of the long term future. They think you guys are nuts. I agree.

---

I don't recall anyone saying he shouldn't be a part of the team long term.

Apparently, there's no middle ground. Either Gravy is a starter or we want him traded.

Didn't realize we had such national notoriety, though. :huh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

I don't recall anyone saying he shouldn't be a part of the team long term.

---

So trading him at every opportunity is being a part of the team long term? [which is not directed at you, but i've lost count of all the trades with vásquez being sent to another team, often in exchange for a couple of bananas and 3 peanuts]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurgan

So trading him at every opportunity is being a part of the team long term? [which is not directed at you, but i've lost count of all the trades with vásquez being sent to another team, often in exchange for a couple of bananas and 3 peanuts]

---

Hey! Those are fair deals!

Hes still a one way player. Name 10 worse starting PG's? Im curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impose

Hes still a one way player. Name 10 worse starting PG's? Im curious.

---

Why don't you find me 10 players who puts up better overall stats. I mean since you think the 14.1/9.4/4.6 statline is considered one of the worst starting PG in the league.

Vasquez isn't a one way player. You just have no clue what that phrase means. Vasquez is a top 3 rebounder at his position and the last time I checked that is considered a defense stat. He has limitations but its not due to his lack of effort.

It's the same old song and dance. Y'all hated Jack's defense last year too. No one will measure up to CP3 defensively without having some sort of limitation.

Y'all expect all pro offense with great defense even though this team heavily relies on team defense. The expectations are unreal.

It doesn't matter if we brought in another PG, all y'all do is find something to nitpick and complain about.


And since you hate these one way offensive players so much, Would you pass on Kyrie Irving if given the opportunity? I didn't think so.

Watch Vasquez play defense against pick n rolls, he NEVER gets around the pick. Has no idea when to go under the pick. Hes terrible defensively and a couple defensive boards a game I could live without if we actually got up the floor quicker and didnt let the opponent defenses set on 80% of our possessions.

He is one way, offense, thats its. Defense is miserable he needs to guard SG and even then hed get beat a lot for having a poor first step.

We can agree to disagree, keep strokin urself on his stat line, idc. Notice the Celtics playing a lot better without Rondo? Theres a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impose

Watch Vasquez play defense against pick n rolls, he NEVER gets around the pick. Has no idea when to go under the pick. Hes terrible defensively and a couple defensive boards a game I could live without if we actually got up the floor quicker and didnt let the opponent defenses set on 80% of our possessions.

He is one way, offense, thats its. Defense is miserable he needs to guard SG and even then hed get beat a lot for having a poor first step.

We can agree to disagree, keep strokin urself on his stat line, idc. Notice the Celtics playing a lot better without Rondo? Theres a reason.

---

You nailed it until you brought up Rondo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impose

Watch Vasquez play defense against pick n rolls, he NEVER gets around the pick. Has no idea when to go under the pick. Hes terrible defensively and a couple defensive boards a game I could live without if we actually got up the floor quicker and didnt let the opponent defenses set on 80% of our possessions.

He is one way, offense, thats its. Defense is miserable he needs to guard SG and even then hed get beat a lot for having a poor first step.

We can agree to disagree, keep strokin urself on his stat line, idc. Notice the Celtics playing a lot better without Rondo? Theres a reason.

---

His job isn't to get around the pick. Lol where do you get that from? His job is to body the PG to slow his man down enough for the help defense to come. That's why we hedge and rotate. The same goes for most defenses. It's crazy that you think a PG has to get around the pick by himself. That doesn't work in the modern NBA and you'll get beat everything with that logic.

He's not miserable on defense. You clearly don't watch games outside of The hornets. There are far worst PGs at defending the P&R. He doesn't get beat off the dribble any more often and any guard in the league in isolation. He does a good job of forcing his man towards the help defense. You're just hating now.

Your comeback is weak. You disregard his stat line and bring up the celtics? You don't think their key players are picking up their play? Jeff Green and Jason Terry have picked up their game since Rondo got hurt. They aren't beating teams defensively. They're doing it offensively. Your examples illogical and pointless. But please, continue to reach.

Really? Point guards job is to run aimlessly into the big on every screen set? Cool story. Good defenders have better footwork and get around picks quicker and easier, I've watched enough basketball to know that lol. Your tone is *****ing and "you're just hatin'" but man, don't hate the player, hate the game, the NBA is too quick for Vasquez. Use your eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impose

Really? Point guards job is to run aimlessly into the big on every screen set? Cool story. Good defenders have better footwork and get around picks quicker and easier, I've watched enough basketball to know that lol. Your tone is *****ing and "you're just hatin'" but man, don't hate the player, hate the game, the NBA is too quick for Vasquez. Use your eyes.

---

Your childish rant doesn't bring anything useful to the table. Please tell how to defend the pick and roll 1 on 1? Go around it, the guard takes a 3 , go in front, you get burnt.

The best way to defend a pick and roll is through team defense with good hedging and rotations. I've made that clear. You just don't want to see it.

I watched the Boston game and the Spurs game against Rajon Rondo and Tony Parker. Vasquez didnt go behind screens against 2 guys you want shooting the 3. He is terrible at P&R defense. Sorry. Glad you saw me trolling and settled down a bit.

That's the thing though. Tony Parker burns 99% of his opponents off the pick and roll. Rondo wasn't much of a Factor In Boston as Vasquez ended up torching both Bradley and Rondo in the second half.

I don't disagree that Vasquez isn't the best defender at the position, I see his limitations but the style the team plays defense, I can't place all the blame on Vasquez. There's too many moving parts in our defense and it requires everyone to rotate correctly and effectively for it to work.

I'm actually more down on Vasquez off of his defensive rotations than I am off of his P&R defense. The thing I think Vasquez really needs to improve in is his timing off the rotations especially when he's bringing help defense into the post. He doesn't have the speed to make up for being late on the rotations. He overcommits and doesn't recover fast enough. If there's a gripe with him defensively for me, that's where mines lie.