Tyler Hansbrough- Backup PF

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BrianFromWA said:
His "stiff, one-dimensional" game has been good enough for a CPOY-candidate. Though I dn't watch as much college BB as I used to, I can't think of a time when a bonehead move by Psycho T took his team out of the game. In fact, I've seen him keep his team in the game much more than he should be able to with a stiff game.

Should he be our starting PF? Nope, I expect our team to have a PF that plays above-average defensively for his 35-40 mpg. Should he get 30mpg? Nope, he probably doesn't have the athleticism to not be exploited in that amount of time.

the players I criticize most on this board are for their lack of effort and boneheaded plays that lose games as veterans, not for any one-dimensional-ness or versatility. I'll take it a step further...the people I'd posted most about having a significantly reduced role on this team were Travis for much of the first half and Blake almost all year, but especially when he came back from injury. Travis was for reasons I've posted significantly about, and posted significantly recently about him rectifying a lot of those. It wasn't for his playing of multiple positions off the bench, it was for his poor defense and lack of effort crashing the boards, especially from the SF position early in the year. I cannot possibly fathom making criticisms about effort or BBIQ against Hansbrough, especially since he'll get at most 12-15 mpg.

As I've posted elsewhere on this thread, I think the stiff things he does bring (specifically effort, hustle, motor, whatever you want to call it) are in short supply for the most part on our team.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Carolina lose to FSU today? Hansbrough basically gagged the game away at the end.
 
What's the site that shows a breakdown of players' minutes at each position? I.E. comparing Travis' production from SF and PF.

Back on topic...I don't think Psycho-T would be a bad pick. We need someone that can bring energy like a Turiaff. Hansbrough isn't the defensive player that Turiaff is obviously, but I think he'd work his butt off and be more effective than any of our current backup PFs (except for maybe Outlaw for a while).
 
Minstrel said:
You keep talking about minutes. Who's fault is that, so that the criticism can be correctly targeted?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused. Fault over minutes played? I'd say that continuing to play Travis at SF early this year when he was consistently leaving open shooting SFs like Miller, McGrady, Hurkoglu, etc was probably Nate's fault for putting Travis in a bad position, knowing his tendency to not be good in that situation. I'm saying not attacking the rim, settling for contested 22-foot 2-pointers and not putting forth effort to rebound was Travis's fault. (Again, see the Quick article about not taking the ball to the hole, even when Nate and his brother tell him he should) But of course he'll play when Coach says to, so his lack of effort and court awareness was more a "personal development and effort" flaw than anything else.

(And as I've said repeatedly, and that seems to be glossed over a bunch, I have been a big Travis fan since he started playing the right way:) )

If Hansbrough choked one away today, he deserves criticism, does he not? He's the stud veteran player on an elite team who lost his team a game. But when we apply that to our two veterans (Blake and Outlaw, since I haven't seen Przy choke away a game), people here are up in arms. Or when we criticize our coach for his players either a) not following his game plan or b) not having a good game plan, people are also up in arms.

My contention with this whole thread is that I think Tyler Hansbrough would be an intriguing choice with the 20-30th pick, after seeing him play much of the last two games against people taller and more athletic than he. His perceived flaws (as posted by many of you on here) have been relatively nonexistent in what I've seen of those games, and that surprised me. He brings effort and court awareness, two things that are sorely lacking in our young, stacked team. Somehow it became a session against my hate of Travis and Blake.

I'll say it again: if Blake was getting Sergio minutes and was playing the way he has, he'd get much less criticism, though he'd still get some. When Travis was hosing up early this year, if he was getting 15 minutes instead of 30 he'd have much less opportunity to mess up and be put in roles he wasn't equipped for. If TH is given 30 minutes a game, I'm sure I'll be on here criticizing how he was exposed. But I don't think that'll happen.
 
I think Hansbrough is willing to hustle and fight for 10 minutes a game. He's got the motor, which is why I think he'll hack it. If anyone is content with Shavlik Randolph on the team, why wouldn't they be okay with Hansbrough ;-)
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm a bit confused. Fault over minutes played?
Click to expand...

Well, I still don't see the point of being critical of Outlaw based on minutes played. He plays that number of minutes because the team doesn't feel they have anyone better for those minutes. That's based in part on Webster not being available, Batum still being raw and having no credible backup power forward.

Outlaw is what he is. An okay player with some strengths and some weaknesses. He's a good value for the money he's paid, he's definitely good enough to deserve a roster spot and he plays the minutes he does because the team needs him to. I'm not sure why you keep saying you only criticize him because he plays "30 minutes instead of 12-15." What should he do about that, refuse to play more than 12-15? :)
 
I see. Nope, the minutes issue isn't his fault. Early in the year, his shortcomings were exposed (to the detriment of a couple of games) with Nate's insistence on playing him more minutes than his play warranted (imho). Giving effort and growing a bit more into the role he's been able to carve out has made him one of my fun-to-watch players. I selfishly tend to think that I was right all along: all it took was a little more effort (in rebounding and attacking the rim) and a little more attention paid (on D) to get to him to be a smaller liability and greater asset.
 
Mark Madsen was a huge contributor to the Laker championship teams of the early 2000's.... from the bench. I'm talking Jack Haley type numbers!
 
BrianFromWA said:
I see. Nope, the minutes issue isn't his fault. Early in the year, his shortcomings were exposed (to the detriment of a couple of games) with Nate's insistence on playing him more minutes than his play warranted (imho). Giving effort and growing a bit more into the role he's been able to carve out has made him one of my fun-to-watch players. I selfishly tend to think that I was right all along: all it took was a little more effort (in rebounding and attacking the rim) and a little more attention paid (on D) to get to him to be a smaller liability and greater asset.
Click to expand...

That's a rather roundabout way of saying that you have come to terms with your own expectations for Outlaw versus what his defined role is on the team. Just a few weeks ago you offered up a thread critical of Outlaw that invited us to spend our afternoon debating.

http://www.sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135953

I see a lot of "he's a 4M bench player...what you get is what you get". I disagree. He's all those things, AND getting almost 30mpg on a playoff-caliber team. That's the part I disagree with. If you want to say that he's the most clutch player on the team, fine (personally I disagree, but I will happily concede that point to continue). He's pretty good in his one dimension. Put him in as a designated clutch shooter in "last play" situations. Bring him off the bench if you need an offensive spark, or if a team goes zone and you want some shooters.

But I think his overall play and/or improvement path does not match with what 28mpg players on playoff teams are giving.

I was asked in another conversation to Compare Travis to players that play his same position off of the bench. How many games has he helped us win or games he actually won for us? How many games has he lost us?[/unquote]He's made one game winner (out of 2) this year. He also almost single-handedly gave away the ORL game. That's the gut-feel response, though I can't think of a way (until they post gaffes on youtube like game winners) that I can show you in video what he's "lost us".
But for comparison...
SF's (on ESPN.com filter) who play 23-30mpg:

Much, MUCH more at the link...
Click to expand...
 
Ed O said:
I don't know if Tyler is good enough to contribute next year... if we want to have a prospect on the bench, I think I'd prefer Freeland.

The team will probably add a veteran backup 4. Someone to bang and rebound and give stability to the second unit. Or at least that's what I think they ought to do.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

:smiley-thumbup:
 
Fez said:
Meh. like others have said, Freeland is a much better option.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing these types of posts regarding Freeland, but I don't understand where they are coming from.

What have I missed? Are people able to watch his games that I didn't know about? Have there been a lot of real scouts writing about him that I missed?

Or is it another case of people overvaluing players to which the Blazers own the rights? Kryapha? Telfair? etc?
 
No thanks, I can't stand him.

- Bitter NC State grad student
 
blazerboy30 said:
I keep seeing these types of posts regarding Freeland, but I don't understand where they are coming from.

What have I missed? Are people able to watch his games that I didn't know about? Have there been a lot of real scouts writing about him that I missed?

Or is it another case of people overvaluing players to which the Blazers own the rights? Kryapha? Telfair? etc?
Click to expand...

He's playing great in the ACB and EuroCup which is usually considered to be a higher level of competition than D-I basketball (or at the least comparable).

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Joel-Freeland-1055/

Put that together with him being two years younger then Hansbrough, considerably more athletic, 2 inches taller and we already own his rights and he seems like a plausible addition ... he may not be a heavy rotation player when he comes over, but as a project he seems much more intriguing than TH.
 
Hansborough, at his best ever, in the NBA, will be a 15 minute a night player. You don't draft that in the first round. You just don't. If you get lucky in the second with a guy who can give you 15 minutes a night, great, but I would much rather reach on high upside late in the first, personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top