I agree with this. He's a good pg on a good team. He's not the right pg for a team like the Hornets that are trying to find an identity and build to the future.Originally Posted by WhoDatPelican
 |
| . |
|
I agree with this. He's a good pg on a good team. He's not the right pg for a team like the Hornets that are trying to find an identity and build to the future.
Not sure i agree..at least not yet.
He's young and cheap so building for the future is fine.
Trying to find identity...so if we are trying to find it meaning we don't have one yet, how do we know he won't fit in when we do find it?
GV at least in my eyes seems like 1 of the only TRUE LEADERS on this team. He's vocal and his work ethic gets mentioned all the time by all the coaches. You get rid of GV who is your leader? Who is actually TALKING out there on the floor? Because i don't see many mouths moving besides Gravy's when i am watching...
I like Vasquez, but even the things about his game you can improve, you can't improve the fact that he's not athletic enough to not be a defensive liability. That's never going to change.
Help Defense is a real thing.
Honestly, imo, there aren't many players who are good enough on D to be 1 on 1 with the stars of this league without help.
90% of the players in this league need help D.
It's a team game.
I don't think he's the long-term answer as a starting point guard, but as a heavy-minutes third guard? I like him a lot in that role. I guess it depends what the market is, but I'd be willing to pay him a little less than the MLE to lead the second unit long-term. I especially like him if we go the rookie PG route as a temporary starter/steadying influence. If he wants to go somewhere else where he's the unquestioned starter and someone exceeds my budget for him, I let him go.
Gordon is actually quite vocal on the defensive side of the ball. I've seen him pointing out rotations and assignments often. Offensively he is
far to quiet.
The question is whether or not he's a long term answer as a starter. With the amount of money he'll command for his next contract, he'll be earning too much money to play off the bench in my opinion.
I think he's capable of being our long-term option, but whether or not I want him to stay here depends on how much we'd have to pay to keep him. His trade value is probably at its peak, so waiting for his contract to run out before making that decision isn't ideal. Personally though I think I'd take the risk and wait to see what the market looks like unless a particularly enticing trade offer comes along.
Last edited by SeaLegs; 02-08-2013 at 12:40 PM.
Gravy is in his 3rd year and improves every year. He was a cousy award winner at Maryland. His intangibles ( attitude, public perceptions, consistent makes off of his drives, and good 3 pointer), endears him to me. who is the all around (top 10 O and D ) pg you envision? its all hope, I like what we have and to grow with the rest of the developmental build. You cant expect all stars at all 5 starting positions. we will have EG, and AD and whever is gonna step up. I cant see replacing Gravy for anyone at this point.
We had quite a few interesting conversations as we pondered and navigated the nightly canopy.
I would love him as a backup because I can't stand seeing him lose games in the final minute when he drives into a double team or puts up some horrible shot to try to win the game.
On the floor abilities / inabilities aside another thing i just thought of that i like about Gravy, he is extremely HONEST in interviews.
If he screws up he admits it, takes the blame, and usually comes back stronger the next game.
That's something i like from players and something i feel is the sign of a good leader.
Don't discount a strong leader especially on a young team.
His hero ball play does bother me sometimes but he's still learning. He'll be the 1st to admit that.
As GV would say "It's a process".
Contributor
I've said this before, if you are a fan who is content with being a hard out in the first and maybe second round then yes, he's a long term option. But if you are a fan who wants to win a title, then no he is not a long term option.
What Monty said a few games back says it all to me.
You mean like Steve Nash?
Triple double but yeh he is a backup
Hah
Sent via Tapatalk
SIGN A SF
Contributor
The thing you must answer is, "Are we more likely to win or lose a championship with him being a major contributor?"
As option 1, 2, or 3? No. Definitely as a 4 or 5th option. The point is.. you can compete with him until you find that perfect PG.
This team isn't going to win or lose a championship because of PG play. It's gonna be on Davis, Gordon, and Anderson (who is historically bad in the playoffs). Team needs a SF who can shoot and a big body center who can defend and rebound.
Emeka Okafor - Joe Smith - Carmelo Anthony - Manu Ginobili - Jason Williams
Al Jefferson - James Posey - Aaron McKie - Shaun Livingston
Contributor
That isn't phrased the way I intend. What I mean is, can we become elite with him being someone we have to lean on or not.
Personally, I don't think so. Right now, Vasquez is called on to be our 2nd or 3rd best player. That's too much. The actual elite teams have guys like Wade, Westbrook, Parker/Ginobli, and the like to lean on.
Bottom line, we need more. More from the wing if Vasquez is here for the long haul. More from the point and...still from the wing anyway.
No matter who is playing the point, it's all up to Gordon in the perimeter and Davis in the paint. Gordon needs to be closer to D-Wade and Davis needs to be closer to Duncan than KG. Need a SF who can shoot and defend.
Contributor
It's not the offense for me, it's about his defense. It just isn't good. He's constantly putting his teammates in bad position because he can't move his feet.
I agree. An elite PG isn't necessary with an elite SG. He just needs to be competent. People are basing his value on the team as is... Which is extremely young, underdeveloped, and incomplete. Besides, Rivers can mask a lot of Vasquez flaws with some time and development.
Contributor
Sounds like Luol Deng to me. Or if we wanna go younger, DeMar DeRozan if we could pry him away from the Raptors.
His defense is bad but unfortunately so is everyone else outside of Davis and Aminu. Lopez and Anderson are below average in defense and rebounding and Gordon isn't playing well defensively either. Once Davis develops physically and Gordon regains his health, the team will make it easier for Vasquez.
I really don't think this team needs to spend a lot of money on a PG with Gordon at the SG. Seems to be it would be a bad investment long-term since Gordon demands the ball a ton. A guy like Vasquez seems to be a good fit since he can play off the ball as well as create. I do agree that Vasquez is a liability defensively, but Davis could erase that liability.
Deng is ok, but he's a bit older for the current nucleus we have and not that great of a perimeter shooter. Honestly, we may have to draft a long-term SF or pray that Aminu improves his shooting or Miller develops.
Contributor
It's just the little things with Vasquez.
Running for example, we have one of the best points per fast break averages in the league, but we can barely get out and actually do it. 25th in the league at 10 ppg. Vasquez tries, but he just doesn't move fast enough.
And I get that Davis could help erase his defensive liability, but I don't want to rely on him to do that. Who knows what could happen in that situation, fouls for one.
When I look at this team play I think of a slow pace Denver. We play a deep rotation, no-ones the "star" we try to attack from all angles on offense and only iso when we have to. For a small market thats actually a really good way to build.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
