Nate likes Lawson?

[Reep]

From the Big O: Link

"Nate McMillan said he had interest in me and they're talking about trading up (in the draft) ..." Lawson said.

If Nate likes Lawson that would be one barrier down--in terms of adding another rookie. Also, I think it speaks to Nate's desire to see the ball pushed more. I think Nate wants it much faster but Blake and Roy just don't run at that speed.

UNC played good defense last year and still scored over 90 pts/game with no lottery talent. Lawson has to get some of the credit for that.

 

[B-Roy]

From the Big O:



If Nate likes Lawson that would be one barrier down--in terms of adding another rookie. Also, I think it speaks to Nate's desire to see the ball pushed more. I think Nate wants it much faster but Blake and Roy just don't run at that speed.

UNC played good defense last year and still scored over 90 pts/game with no lottery talent. Lawson has to get some of the credit for that.

Hansborough isn't a "lottery" talent in the NBA, but in terms of College Basketball, he was in the tops.

 

[hasoos]

I don't see any reason he wouldn't like Lawson. Besides, whats the chances Lawson walks in and is better than Sergio straight out the gate. Probably pretty high. Hell probably most of the point guards in this draft are.

 

[Reep]

I don't see any reason he wouldn't like Lawson. Besides, whats the chances Lawson walks in and is better than Sergio straight out the gate. Probably pretty high. Hell probably most of the point guards in this draft are.

As much as I don't care for Sergio on this team, I think Sergio could be out any PG not named Rubio or Lawson in this draft. The others are too unproven.

 

[andalusian]

As much as I don't care for Sergio on this team, I think Sergio could be out any PG not named Rubio or Lawson in this draft. The others are too unproven.

I am not buying this Flynn seems like a guy that would be better than Sergio pretty much from the get go and Curry in the right system will be as well...

 

[SodaPopinski]

Of course that's what they'd tell Lawson if they wanted to get him out here. Who knows, though? We didn't even work Bayless out last year.

-Pop

 

[Reep]

I am not buying this Flynn seems like a guy that would be better than Sergio pretty much from the get go and Curry in the right system will be as well...

It's hard to speculate about Flynn and Curry. I would have though Bayless would come in and do more--but he didn't. It's not that they wouldn't contribute (scoring, etc.), but can either come in an run the offense better than Sergio?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Nate's likes

Steve Blake
Jarrett jack
Taurean Green
Travis Outlaw



I say no to anyone Nate likes.

Also, the last thing we need to do is bring in another rookie PG that Nate can't develop. How many would that make?

 

[MAS RipCity]

Lawson will fail here. He needs a team who is willing to run to be successful and we just don't push it enough

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I like Lawson a lot also. As long as Rubio, Curry or Flynn aren't available to us, and we can nab Lawson, I'm walking out of this draft with a smile on my face.

Of course I'm still holding my breath for Harris, Conley, or Hinrich too.

 

[hasoos]

I like Lawson a lot also. As long as Rubio, Curry or Flynn aren't available to us, and we can nab Lawson, I'm walking out of this draft with a smile on my face.

Of course I'm still holding my breath for Harris, Conley, or Hinrich too.

I'm not. I am pretty skeptical anything will be done. I would not be surprised if the Blazers rolled into next season with the exact same lineup minus some free agent losses. I think the trades before the draft are now a countermove to things KP has been doing the last few years. Teams are trying to make moves and lock down positions before he, or GM's who are working like him, can swoop in and take players right out of their grasp. This limits KP's ability for those last second moves.

 

[Reep]

Nate's likes

Steve Blake
Jarrett jack
Taurean Green
Travis Outlaw

I say no to anyone Nate likes.

Good point, but I think Nate really does want to push more, just without too many turnovers. I don't think we have a PG in our lineup that can do that (and play reasonable defense).

 

[Mediocre Man]

Good point, but I think Nate really does want to push more, just without too many turnovers. I don't think we have a PG in our lineup that can do that (and play reasonable defense).

I have 9 years of Mr Sonic's coaching record that would disagree with you.

 

[andalusian]

It's hard to speculate about Flynn and Curry. I would have though Bayless would come in and do more--but he didn't. It's not that they wouldn't contribute (scoring, etc.), but can either come in an run the offense better than Sergio?

I honestly think the only reason Sergio got the minutes he did instead of Bayless was as a way to help Rudy transition and for him to get a last chance to prove himself.

 

[Cake]

I am starting to really, really like the idea of us drafting Ty Lawson.

Not because of Nate McMillan, but because of the absurdly good numbers he put up in an excellent conference. (and the fact the Big Suck on 1080 the fan hates him. That dude is a straight up moron who admits to hating college basketball and then spouts his opinions as if he knows what he's talking about.)

Check out these numbers:

1.7 points per shot
8.5 assists per 40
3.5 assists per turnover
20.4 points per 40 minutes

All of those numbers are better than Chris Paul as a sophomore. (yeah, Ty Lawson's numbers as a sophomore were better than Chris Paul's numbers as well.)

People seem to dislike him for 3 reasons that I've heard.

Size - Well...I mentioned Chris Paul, who is a pretty successful NBA point guard and he's a half an inch taller than Lawson. (Lawson has a standing reach 1.5 inches higher than Chris Paul.) He's an inch taller than all-star Jameer Nelson. Size doesn't really matter if you're good enough.

Shooting - for some reason, people think he can't shoot. 53% from the floor last season would indicate that he can shoot and shoot very well.

Defense - he steals the ball at an outstanding rate and he's quick enough to keep up with most guys. There are a few that will shred him...but that's true of every PG in the league. A quick PG will give anyone troubles. He's got the tools to be at the very least, an average defender.

People need to get with the program here. Ty Lawson is not Damon Stoudamire. This kid is good and he will make a couple all star teams in his career.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I am starting to really, really like the idea of us drafting Ty Lawson.

Not because of Nate McMillan, but because of the absurdly good numbers he put up in an excellent conference. (and the fact the Big Suck on 1080 the fan hates him. That dude is a straight up moron who admits to hating college basketball and then spouts his opinions as if he knows what he's talking about.)

Check out these numbers:

1.7 points per shot
8.5 assists per 40
3.5 assists per turnover
20.4 points per 40 minutes

All of those numbers are better than Chris Paul as a sophomore. (yeah, Ty Lawson's numbers as a sophomore were better than Chris Paul's numbers as well.)

People seem to dislike him for 3 reasons that I've heard.

Size - Well...I mentioned Chris Paul, who is a pretty successful NBA point guard and he's a half an inch taller than Lawson. (Lawson has a standing reach 1.5 inches higher than Chris Paul.) He's an inch taller than all-star Jameer Nelson. Size doesn't really matter if you're good enough.

Shooting - for some reason, people think he can't shoot. 53% from the floor last season would indicate that he can shoot and shoot very well.

Defense - he steals the ball at an outstanding rate and he's quick enough to keep up with most guys. There are a few that will shred him...but that's true of every PG in the league. A quick PG will give anyone troubles. He's got the tools to be at the very least, an average defender.

People need to get with the program here. Ty Lawson is not Damon Stoudamire. This kid is good and he will make a couple all star teams in his career.

I don't like him because of injuries. I think the kid can flat out play, although probably not on a slow paced team like ours.

 

[Tince]

I have 9 years of Mr Sonic's coaching record that would disagree with you.

Please share! I want to see these stats.

More importantly I wanted to see the website you get these stats from. I would love to see a site that has fastbreak point differential and pace for a single coach over the past nine year, that would be awesome!

 

[andalusian]

I have 9 years of Mr Sonic's coaching record that would disagree with you.

Name the PG he had during this tenure that could do it? He had Payton at the start of his decline for a year and a half and...? Kevin Ollie?, Luke Ridnour? Antonio Daniels?, Bassy? Blake? Jack? Sergio?

 

[Reep]

I don't like him because of injuries. I think the kid can flat out play, although probably not on a slow paced team like ours.

I don't know how many games you watched last year, but during many timeouts you could hear Nate yelling at them to push the ball. It doesn't mean push it and take the first available shot, but push it and see if there is an easy basket. Remember the time toward the end of the season where Nate made them get it over half court in under four seconds? He really is trying, he is just not getting the execution.

Comparing Lawson to Chris Paul: interesting that Lawson has an advantage in standing reach, but has a 3.5" shorter wing span laterally? That is a pretty large gap. Paul has broader shoulders?

 

[Reep]

Please share! I want to see these stats.

More importantly I wanted to see the website you get these stats from. I would love to see a site that has fastbreak point differential and pace for a single coach over the past nine year, that would be awesome!

I did look it up on basketball reference. Interestingly, Nate's teams were often in the top 5 in offensive efficiency, but in the bottom half of pace (often in the bottom 5).

I don't want a run and gun system, but I would like to see them take advantage of beating teams back more often.

 

[andalusian]

I did look it up on basketball reference. Interestingly, Nate's teams were often in the top 5 in offensive efficiency, but in the bottom half of pace (often in the bottom 5).

I don't want a run and gun system, but I would like to see them take advantage of beating teams back more often.

Me too. And I think we are finally getting to the point where we have the roster to do it, especially if we can plug the dreaded piss poor perimeter defense against point-guards problem.

 

[Reep]

Me too. And I think we are finally getting to the point where we have the roster to do it, especially if we can plug the dreaded piss poor perimeter defense against point-guards problem.

Amen to that.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Please share! I want to see these stats.

More importantly I wanted to see the website you get these stats from. I would love to see a site that has fastbreak point differential and pace for a single coach over the past nine year, that would be awesome!

Here it is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

It shows each teams pace for each year. It shows pace factor if you click on the team and the specific year of the coach, as well as full NBA team stats if you click on the year.

 

[RickyRubio]

I liked Lawson a lot last year when he came to camp. I think that would be a good pick for us. But we would have to move Blake.

Something about Lawson says gold to me.

 

[RickyRubio]

Here it is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

It shows each teams pace for each year. It shows pace factor if you click on the team and the specific year of the coach, as well as full NBA team stats if you click on the year.

Tince got owned.

 

[Cake]

I did look it up on basketball reference. Interestingly, Nate's teams were often in the top 5 in offensive efficiency, but in the bottom half of pace (often in the bottom 5).

I don't want a run and gun system, but I would like to see them take advantage of beating teams back more often.

If a team is top 5 in efficiency without running...why run? I mean, isn't efficiency more important than running?

I get the idea that it's better to run a little bit to get some easy hoops...but evidently we are getting a lot of easy hoops, or else we wouldn't be so efficient.

 

[Tince]

Here it is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

It shows each teams pace for each year. It shows pace factor if you click on the team and the specific year of the coach, as well as full NBA team stats if you click on the year.

Thanks for the link, but I didn't find the fast break differential I was looking for. I wish someone like 82games.com would put together a formula based of the roster of a team, past and prior PACE with those teams compared to when the coach was there, and a few other stats to come up with a better picture.

I thought you had a specific link that was a one-stop shop, but in all seriousness, thank you.

 

[Tince]

If a team is top 5 in efficiency without running...why run? I mean, isn't efficiency more important than running?

I get the idea that it's better to run a little bit to get some easy hoops...but evidently we are getting a lot of easy hoops, or else we wouldn't be so efficient.

Some fans want entertainment more than they want wins.

I think they'd rather us turn into the Suns than the Spurs.

 

[Reep]

If a team is top 5 in efficiency without running...why run? I mean, isn't efficiency more important than running?

I get the idea that it's better to run a little bit to get some easy hoops...but evidently we are getting a lot of easy hoops, or else we wouldn't be so efficient.

You get no argument from me. I think there were some lost opportunities against good defensive teams last year because we let them get set up too often. Those are the teams we need to really try and hit before they set up. Aside from that, efficiency and defense win titles, and I can live with that.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It's been my opinion all along that we're after a PG, perferably Lawson as he's the easiest to attain and we will add a veteran PG (Kidd) to tutor him for a year or two. We will not start the year with one of the 3 current SF's nor with at least 1 and maybe 2 of our current PG's.