Cunningham is better than Outlaw, right now.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
oldmangrouch said:
He's making more sense than you are. You don't seem to understand the difference between talent and skill.

At the risk of repeating myself: college ball is full of players with a higher IQ than Travis. Unless they also have a certain level of talent, they will never be able to score, rebound, or defend at the NBA level. A dumb player with talent can (sometimes) be trained to contribute. A smart player without talent is DOA.
Click to expand...

So what are you saying?
 
I like what I've seen from Dante thus far. But to say he could step into Outlaw's role and do better has a lot more to do with one's feelings on Travis than it does how excited you are about Dante.

Outlaw is an athletic shot jacker. He doesn't do anything else. But that one thing he does do is very valuable. After all, the team with the most points wins the game.

There has long been an idea that we'd be better off with a more all around player like Dante. I remember several times people suggesting that we try to trade him for Desmond Mason. But if we do that we have one less guy you can depend on to create their own shot. Travis can jack up shots from anywhere on the court. A goodly amount of those go in the basket.

I'm not a big Travis guy. I'm hoping Utah doesn't match for Millsap and Webster's healthy enough to play the 15 to 20 minutes a game Travis played at the 3. I think we'd be much better off with a real bruiser power forward and a real spot up shooting small forward.

But to declare Travis is now expendable because of a couple summer league games is a tad premature.
 
ebott said:
I like what I've seen from Dante thus far. But to say he could step into Outlaw's role and do better has a lot more to do with one's feelings on Travis than it does how excited you are about Dante.

Outlaw is an athletic shot jacker. He doesn't do anything else. But that one thing he does do is very valuable. After all, the team with the most points wins the game.

There has long been an idea that we'd be better off with a more all around player like Dante. I remember several times people suggesting that we try to trade him for Desmond Mason. But if we do that we have one less guy you can depend on to create their own shot. Travis can jack up shots from anywhere on the court. A goodly amount of those go in the basket.

I'm not a big Travis guy. I'm hoping Utah doesn't match for Millsap and Webster's healthy enough to play the 15 to 20 minutes a game Travis played at the 3. I think we'd be much better off with a real bruiser power forward and a real spot up shooting small forward.

But to declare Travis is now expendable because of a couple summer league games is a tad premature.
Click to expand...

Actually summer league games or not, I think Travis has been replaceable for years by many players off of free agent list or drafting for need. If it wasn't Cunningham, it easily could have been a lot of other players. Hell there have been vet free agents on the available board almost every year who are better than him, and are known value on the court. The facts are, if Travis shot isn't falling, he is a detriment on the court.
 
HAAK72 said:
"TO must GO [just like zBO]!!!"
Click to expand...

I'm so glad we keep drafting guys that have names or nicknames that rhyme with go. Next year, we can chant that G-O must GO, when he becomes next year's scapegoat.
 
Sug said:
I have a copy of his drivers license though, he even signed it...:cheers:

qyntel-woods-autographed-basketball-card-portland-trail-blazers2_26140b8294f7c9dd5018cd8f6524d804.jpg
Click to expand...

:biglaugh: !!!
 
BlazerCaravan said:
I'm so glad we keep drafting guys that have names or nicknames that rhyme with go. Next year, we can chant that G-O must GO, when he becomes next year's scapegoat.
Click to expand...

...this one, I am hoping and praying that we don't have to do that!!! It is just that both, zBO and TO, score extremely low in the IQ department with no signs of improvement in that area :dunno:
 
I'm not quite ready to christen Dante better or even close to being as effective as Travis as an NBA player, but I will agree with the underlying premise that he looks like a much more well rounded player with an intuitive sense of the game (Hoops IQ if you will). Travis is still a freak athlete with the ability to get some crazy shots up in the air that actually go in surprisingly often. If Dante is on the roster come training camp and if he's part of the rotation when the season gets rolling that's when can make legitimate quantitative and qualitative judgments about his ability compared to Travis. Until then I'm just going to enjoy him for what he is at face value -- a second round pick who seems to be playing more like a first round pick. Where this leads is still very much in doubt.
 
HAAK72 said:
...this one, I am hoping and praying that we don't have to do that!!! It is just that both, zBO and TO, score extremely low in the IQ department with no signs of improvement in that area :dunno:
Click to expand...

You can't really improve IQ :(
 
RickyRubio said:
You can't really improve IQ :(
Click to expand...

I'm starting to hate the term "Basketball IQ", call it "floor sense" or "feel for the game," but IQ is a total misnomer. Whereas true IQ or intelligence isn't something you can move a whole lot, floor sense and feel for the game can definitely be improved on with experience. The fact that Travis still doesn't seem to have much at this point of his 6 year NBA career probably doesn't bode well for him improving much more, but to say a player can't improve their "basketball IQ" is just wrong -- in this instance, Travis just didn't improve his much.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I'm starting to hate the term "Basketball IQ", call it "floor sense" or "feel for the game," but IQ is a total misnomer. Whereas true IQ or intelligence isn't something you can move a whole lot, floor sense and feel for the game can definitely be improved on with experience. The fact that Travis still doesn't seem to have much at this point of his 6 year NBA career probably doesn't bode well for him improving much more, but to say a player can't improve their "basketball IQ" is just wrong -- in this instance, Travis just didn't improve his much.
Click to expand...

Well I am sick of gay people saying they want to get "married", call it joined, sword-fighting, taco-stacking, but not marriage. It is a total misnomer.

Say what?
 
RickyRubio said:
Well I am sick of gay people saying they want to get "married", call it joined, sword-fighting, taco-stacking, but not marriage. It is a total misnomer.

Say what?
Click to expand...

You may want to take the advice across the top of your avatar.
 
Nikolokolus said:
For what? being overly sensitive to criticims of his opinions?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it sensitive. Just bored.

And really though. What is the definition of marriage? The union between a WOMAN and a MAN. Not the union of 2 humans.

ZING!
 
For randomly bringing up gay marriage and saying insulting things towards gays.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I'm starting to hate the term "Basketball IQ", call it "floor sense" or "feel for the game," but IQ is a total misnomer. Whereas true IQ or intelligence isn't something you can move a whole lot, floor sense and feel for the game can definitely be improved on with experience. The fact that Travis still doesn't seem to have much at this point of his 6 year NBA career probably doesn't bode well for him improving much more, but to say a player can't improve their "basketball IQ" is just wrong -- in this instance, Travis just didn't improve his much.
Click to expand...

...precisely :cheers:
 
RickyRubio said:
Well I am sick of gay people saying they want to get "married", call it joined, sword-fighting, taco-stacking, but not marriage. It is a total misnomer.

Say what?
Click to expand...

...I didn't know that zBO and TO were trying to get married, that is crazy news :dunno:
 
Why do you care what they call it? Why does it matter to you? They should be able to get married and do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on your rights.
 
How did this thread turn into a gay marriage thread?
 
Nikolokolus said:
I'm starting to hate the term "Basketball IQ", call it "floor sense" or "feel for the game," but IQ is a total misnomer. Whereas true IQ or intelligence isn't something you can move a whole lot, floor sense and feel for the game can definitely be improved on with experience. The fact that Travis still doesn't seem to have much at this point of his 6 year NBA career probably doesn't bode well for him improving much more, but to say a player can't improve their "basketball IQ" is just wrong -- in this instance, Travis just didn't improve his much.
Click to expand...

Normally I agree with you Nik, but not this time around. I think that "basketball IQ" encompasses a much larger subject than just "floor sense" or "feel for the game." Someone with a high basketball IQ understands the offensive and defensive schemes that their team is trying to run. They get it. It doesn't have to be constantly explained to them.

They know when to pass and when to shoot. That's not "floor sense," that's just common sense. If you are being guarded by 2 or 3 guys, and someone is wide open, you pass the ball. Travis seems to lack this common sense.

They understand that they shouldn't leave their man wide open when he's an excellent shooter. :dunno:

These are all things that one could, in theory, improve upon. Surprisingly, after six years, Travis really has not.

I'm not ready to speculate whether Cunningham is better than Travis, but I do not agree with the argument that Cunningham can not possibly be better than Outlaw, simply because he was drafted in the second round. Plenty of very good basketball players have been drafted in the second round. Arenas, Rashard Lewis, etc.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Normally I agree with you Nik, but not this time around. I think that "basketball IQ" encompasses a much larger subject than just "floor sense" or "feel for the game." Someone with a high basketball IQ understands the offensive and defensive schemes that their team is trying to run. They get it. It doesn't have to be constantly explained to them.

They know when to pass and when to shoot. That's not "floor sense," that's just common sense. If you are being guarded by 2 or 3 guys, and someone is wide open, you pass the ball. Travis seems to lack this common sense.

They understand that they shouldn't leave their man wide open when he's an excellent shooter. :dunno:

These are all things that one could, in theory, improve upon. Surprisingly, after six years, Travis really has not.

I'm not ready to speculate whether Cunningham is better than Travis, but I do not agree with the argument that Cunningham can not possibly be better than Outlaw, simply because he was drafted in the second round. Plenty of very good basketball players have been drafted in the second round. Arenas, Rashard Lewis, etc.
Click to expand...

I watched some youtube clips of Cunningham and the one thing I noticed is his ability to create space, and recognize how the floor is spaced. He also has a nice looking shot, quick, and a nice touch. Does this mean he will be an NBA player? I have no idea.
 
Saw some youtube stuff on Hot Sause . . .without question he is better than The Professor.

I wonder if there is a place on this team for Cummingham . . . Rudy would say no.
 
Originally Posted by Nikolokolus

I'm starting to hate the term "Basketball IQ", call it "floor sense" or "feel for the game," but IQ is a total misnomer. Whereas true IQ or intelligence isn't something you can move a whole lot, floor sense and feel for the game can definitely be improved on with experience. The fact that Travis still doesn't seem to have much at this point of his 6 year NBA career probably doesn't bode well for him improving much more, but to say a player can't improve their "basketball IQ" is just wrong -- in this instance, Travis just didn't improve his much.
Click to expand...

I agree, but primarily because an intelligent quotient is derived these days from a standard line of questioning, be they verbal or written, as well as a generally accepted set of criteria that is tested to find one's 'IQ'. In basketball, there is no way to quantify a number that would become one's 'IQ'; therefore, we get the extreme of either a "low basketball IQ" or a "high basketball IQ". It basically takes the graded approach to 'IQ' and dumbs it down to a black/white or good/bad paradigm. So, I like the idea of "court sense", which is what I use.

I actually cringe when I read about a player's "low basketball IQ". It makes no sense to me unless a number is attached to the critique, and to me, it reflects on the poster more than it does the player being praised or criticized. As for IQ being static, I agree 100%, and look at what a player like Hakeem Olajuwon became on offense after being a dunking/rebounding/defensive player when drafted. The same could be said for Patrick Ewing as well. Did their 'IQ' improve? Or did they become much better at understanding the complete game as they were exposed to more coaching/situations that complemented their incredible athletic gifts? I'd go with the latter.
 
Zybot said:
If he really was that good he would have been drafted in the 1st round.
Click to expand...

Is Travis really that good? Do you really want to use a 1st round pick on an average player with low BBall IQ, poor rebounding and occasionally great shooting? Personally, I hope for more than that out of a first rounder, that sounds like second rounder territory and so IMO we're comparing apples to apples (2nd round quality player to 2nd round pick).

Gramps...
 
PapaG said:
I agree, but primarily because an intelligent quotient is derived these days from a standard line of questioning, be they verbal or written, as well as a generally accepted set of criteria that is tested to find one's 'IQ'. In basketball, there is no way to quantify a number that would become one's 'IQ'; therefore, we get the extreme of either a "low basketball IQ" or a "high basketball IQ". It basically takes the graded approach to 'IQ' and dumbs it down to a black/white or good/bad paradigm. So, I like the idea of "court sense", which is what I use.

I actually cringe when I read about a player's "low basketball IQ". It makes no sense to me unless a number is attached to the critique, and to me, it reflects on the poster more than it does the player being praised or criticized. As for IQ being static, I agree 100%, and look at what a player like Hakeem Olajuwon became on offense after being a dunking/rebounding/defensive player when drafted. The same could be said for Patrick Ewing as well. Did their 'IQ' improve? Or did they become much better at understanding the complete game as they were exposed to more coaching/situations that complemented their incredible athletic gifts? I'd go with the latter.
Click to expand...

I think there could just as easily be a test to determine a basketball IQ based on understanding of offensive and defensive sets, and/or situational awareness. Nobody has done it, so in the meantime, we just rely on "low" or "high" when talking about someone who either does or does not grasp the inner workings of the game of basketball.
 
PapaG said:
I agree, but primarily because an intelligent quotient is derived these days from a standard line of questioning, be they verbal or written, as well as a generally accepted set of criteria that is tested to find one's 'IQ'. In basketball, there is no way to quantify a number that would become one's 'IQ'; therefore, we get the extreme of either a "low basketball IQ" or a "high basketball IQ". It basically takes the graded approach to 'IQ' and dumbs it down to a black/white or good/bad paradigm. So, I like the idea of "court sense", which is what I use.

I actually cringe when I read about a player's "low basketball IQ". It makes no sense to me unless a number is attached to the critique, and to me, it reflects on the poster more than it does the player being praised or criticized. As for IQ being static, I agree 100%, and look at what a player like Hakeem Olajuwon became on offense after being a dunking/rebounding/defensive player when drafted. The same could be said for Patrick Ewing as well. Did their 'IQ' improve? Or did they become much better at understanding the complete game as they were exposed to more coaching/situations that complemented their incredible athletic gifts? I'd go with the latter.
Click to expand...

LOL ridiculous. Thank God for the ignore feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top