| . |
 |
You don't think Burke can play off the ball better? Rivers can't play off the ball at all. He needs the ball in his hands so he can get to the basket because he's a below average shooter. Burke is a tremendous shooter.Originally Posted by Mythrol
Burke handles the ball better and can see the floor better as a point guard compared to Rivers.
Emeka Okafor - Joe Smith - Carmelo Anthony - Manu Ginobili - Jason Williams
Al Jefferson - James Posey - Aaron McKie - Shaun Livingston
I don't like the pairing of Burke and Gordon. I understand the mindset of having both guys being good with the ball and both good spot up shooters, but the sheer lack of size puts us at a huge disadvantage IMO. Both mostly if Burke becomes the PG that I think he will I'll want the ball in his hands predominantly like a Chris Paul, Steve Nash, or Kyrie Irving type fashion.
Of course my solution would be to trade Gordon as it's been for a while now and hasn't changed one bit based on his health or production.
Who's talking about right now. You said "ever could be". That was what I was asking about. We drafted Rivers as a project and asked him to switch positions, and then turned around and told him hey btw go back to playing the position you originally were because of Gordon's injury. Burke has had two years of college ball playing one position and we havent seen how well his game will transition over. I simply think its a little early to already say Burke will be a better PG than Rivers will ever be. Lets let Rivers get two full years playing the same position first at least.
I agree we can't say with any certainty who will be better and to say otherwise isn't wise or fair. However we can project, and having watch both I don't think it's close. To me being able to balance your production with getting others involved may be the most difficult skill to master. So if your Demps and do all your homework on Burke and you think without a doubt his PG skills will translate then why gamble that a project will work? Especially when you can move Rivers into a role he's more naturally suited for anyways.
Last edited by da ThRONe; 03-31-2013 at 11:45 AM.
I agree with this. Its easy to project Burke as a true PG while Rivers as a combo guard.
I'm not necessarily against that however I thought the entire reason for taking Rivers at 10 was because they not only thought he was BPA but that he would make a good NBA PG. In a cut and dry situation I might agree with you about Burke over Rivers. However if you're Dell and have a guy you believed 12 months ago as your future PG and have a chance to improve another position do you still give up on that guy and take Burke?
I certainly wouldn't be upset if we took Burke. I'm just thinking if he's the best answer long term. A lot of people who seem to want Burke want him because we need an upgrade over Vasquez. That seems a little short sighted to me because I thought Rivers would be him. Also, I think an upgrade at SF would help our PG play no matter who is there.
Maybe, but by the same token, an upgrade in PG play would help our SF play no matter who is there. I'm not saying Rivers isn't that guy, but Vasquez isn't.
This train of thought says we "give up" on Rivers. I said move him to a position more natural. We've seen several players play different position than what they were drafted for. If Demps is as smart as many think he is he won't be pigeon "held" by a past decision. When we draft if Trey Burke is the BPA(I think he's the best player in this draft anyways) you take him and worry about what you'll do with Rivers or anybody else when that time comes.
I say draft Burke, make him your starting 1.
Move Rivers to st, that's his natural position.
Trade Gordon and GV, and net a sf worth a damn.
Move Davis to 5, move Anderson into your starting 4 spot.
Profit
If you Jimmer it, they will come.
You know you say that about Rivers at the 2 being natural, but he's looked more natural as a PG in the NBA IMO.
"I don't know if people know — I dislocated my pinkie finger. And [Tyreke] told me, 'You wanna go home or you wanna be here?' I want to be here. And he said, 'All right, then go tape it up and let's play. Let's go. We not stoppin' at no stores. Straight gas. That's what we do, just keep going.'"
http://thebasketbawlblog.com/
I believe this too....I just wish I had an idea what the organization was thinking....
"we might make dollars, but we don't necessarily make sense"
"always be sincere....whether you mean it or not"
But he was a HS all American as a sg.
He helped Duke win a lot of games as a sg.
He comes here and we make him a pg?
It's like:
You have been a great comedian.
You wrote some great comedies.
Now they want you to direct.
Personally I see Rivers as the ideal 6th man in the Jamal Crawford mold. He'll get the majority of his mins where he can play free not worrying about making mistake or getting others involved.
I'm not sure position in high school and college should be indicative to where he will be most natural in the NBA though. He was a 2 in high school because he was the best scorer on the team and 6'3 isn't undersized. He was a 2 in college because he was the best (the only) scorer on that team and 6'3 isn't undersized there. Now that he's no longer the best scorer and is undersized for his position, why place him in that position? I feel like it's setting him up to fail. He's a good sized 1 and a undersized 2. Even Gordon as a 2 is undersized but he's at least built like a tank. Rivers is a pretty trim guy. I don't know the right answer, just saying what I think he looks more comfortable doing in the NBA.
Davis and Rivers both could use some time at a gym and at Golden Corral. Their thickness is sad.
With the way the game is changing, I don't think height as much as athletecism is the issue.
I think hes capable of being either. Rivers has shown since the allstar break that he is capable (not saying he is) of being an elite ball handler. He can make plays purely because of the attention he requires attacking the basket. He and Gordon would be a nightmare for defenses, ntm he would be a big PG. If you add his solid on ball defense, and potential jumpshot he can be a real menace.
I agree. They both really impressed me after the break. Nba ready bodies would help them drastically.
I truly wonder where Burke is on demps's radar. I dont see him as a cant miss prospect, but he has really impressed all season. I am a little worried with his struggles in the tourney. He made plays when it mattered, but he wasnt necessarily dominant like i had hoped he would be. Id pick him over Zeller Len and Oladipo (only bc hes last on our list of needs).
Height isn't rivers problem, like i said, it's the bulk. If you're not a long player at least have some girth. TWSS.
If there is a legitimate gripe about Burke, it's his tendency to fall in love with the 3 ball. Everything else is just nitpicking.
Contributor
He's a lil' like Jimmer Ferdette in his shot selection. Only he's a better athlete than Jimmer.
It may sound crazy but it's another reason I love Burke as a player. He still has a ton of growth left in his game. The NBA drafts for potential just as much if not more than production. Trey has a high level of both.
Nice steal and layup at the end of half. Burke is good
Contributor
If it's one thing we need, it's someone who is willing to get his own shot at times. And as I type this Burke goes HAM with the on ball steal and finish.
just used the lottery machine, we took trey burke let's hope he doesn't play himself out of our range.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote