2024-2025 NBA thread: who wants to buy a Duck Boat?!?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

That’s a clown take - you’re having a straw man argument. No one said Kerr was infallible but you. Warriors fans frequently question some of his rotation choices.

Getting on his case for benching a player who was playing like shit is dumb.

---

Uh, did you see the post I responded to? You're taking mine out of context if you think I am saying anything but the same as you, that it's perfectly reasonable to analyze and criticize his choices; insulating him from any criticism because "he knows better" is what I was calling a clown take. FFS.

And this is not the NBA, this is the Olympics and the national team filled with NBA all stars sacrificing their time to be there. It is nowhere near the same as "getting on his case for benching a player" as if this was the Warriors and he was benching Kuminga. And I guaran-damn-fucking-tee you that had he benched, for ex, Curry because he shot 1-9 against South Sudan you would have been screaming about how terrible that move is.

All I am saying is that this is a different situation than his normal team, and constructing rosters and lineups within these rosters should have more considerations than "what is the very best first team and second team I can put together and damn everything else." Everyone has to take a different approach to what they normally do, players have to facilitate for others more, focus on different things, etc, and I think the coach should similarly be focused on different things. And to a certain extent he was, for sure; I just think he didn't do it enough.

I hope it snows soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

And Tatum never said a word, so disliking a guy because his family was upset or whatever, that seems lame. And Brown certainly had a legit beef in not getting picked, though I understand why they picked D White.

---

Tatum called it a "humbling experience" after listing all of his recent accomplishments after the South Sudan game and a player's camp is often the way players get out their complaints to create the illusion of distance from said complaints. The fact is he played bad and wasn't deserving of more minutes. He wasn't asserting himself into the offense like he has with the Celtics in recent years. Like I said, he passed up open looks, looked hesitant.

I prefer how Haliburton took the high road with his DNPs, even joking about it after winning the gold. Whereas, I've seen many headlines about tatum and his limited role, even post-Olympics. His actions are lame IMO and a player's actions off the court influence who I like on the court.

Overall, I think Tatum and Brown are incredible talents. But for me, the off court stuff around the olympics diminished what i think of both players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

And I guaran-damn-fucking-tee you that had he benched, for ex, Curry because he shot 1-9 against South Sudan you would have been screaming about how terrible that move is.

---

Not benching Curry speaks to the genius of Kerr because they certainly needed him in the semi and final games. Curry also was playing how he always played, and even when he's having a shooting slump, Curry works as a great decoy to help keep spacing. Tatum looked shook out there, which allows defenses to ignore you and better help out.

I do hope Tatum plays in 2028 because the USA will certainly need him more in those games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

That’s a clown take - you’re having a straw man argument. No one said Kerr was infallible but you. Warriors fans frequently question some of his rotation choices.

Getting on his case for benching a player who was playing like shit is dumb.

---

I didnt say he was infallible. I implied hes very fallible. Kerr’s rotations suck when he can’t roll out 4 all stars or have Curry go for 50. Shocker. He stinks. Nice job in 2023 Steve with a rotation of NBA players and all stars. 4th place.

I disagree with benching Tatum but I disagree more with using Bill Simmons in any argument. The Tatum thing I go in on to see what lengths you’ll defend your binky.

Edit: Kerr def not vengeful I do agree with that. Common ground!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutah

Not benching Curry speaks to the genius of Kerr because they certainly needed him in the semi and final games. Curry also was playing how he always played, and even when he's having a shooting slump, Curry works as a great decoy to help keep spacing. Tatum looked shook out there, which allows defenses to ignore you and better help out.

---

To be clear before someone jumps down my throat, I was not suggesting that Kerr should have benched Curry.

I'm not even suggesting that Tatum should have played big minutes. Merely suggesting that the only guy on your team who was 1st team all-NBA should not receive a DNP-CD let alone 2, against Serbia, if for no other reason than respect.

For ex, every player on the 1992 team -- including Laettner -- played in every game (except for injured players). Chuck Daly got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

To be clear before someone jumps down my throat, I was not suggesting that Kerr should have benched Curry.

I'm not even suggesting that Tatum should have played big minutes. Merely suggesting that the only guy on your team who was 1st team all-NBA should not receive a DNP-CD let alone 2, against Serbia, if for no other reason than respect.

For ex, every player on the 1992 team -- including Laettner -- played in every game (except for injured players). Chuck Daly got it.

---

The 1992 team's closest game was a 28 point victory. They won their semi-final (where the US had to come back to nip Serbia) by 51 points! There wasn't any real worry about putting the best team out there as they were simply too good for any other team across the board. With that said, I don't know why Kerr couldn't have found Tatum some minutes in the first Serbia game. It was comfortable for the whole fourth quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusBrody

The 1992 team's closest game was a 28 point victory. They won their semi-final (where the US had to come back to nip Serbia) by 51 points! There wasn't any real worry about putting the best team out there as they were simply too good for any other team across the board. With that said, I don't know why Kerr couldn't have found Tatum some minutes in the first Serbia game. It was comfortable for the whole fourth quarter.

---

I get that. But we're talking about Tatum as if he is an end of teh bench scrub playing against the best in the world, and finding him minutes was so tough. The team we are talking about -- Serbia -- had 2 NBA players on it. They are a good team, but if the US is struggling against them, then maybe those players that ARE getting playing time aren't doing a great job. Serbia may have the best player, but the US had the next best dozen. So the notion that we have to play very specific lineups and Tatum doesn't play because he is a bad matchup -- when truly, how many guys on Serbia are better than Tatum -- is misplaced. It's not like he had to play the 5 and cover Jokic.

Not all missed shots are the same. Say a rim rattler vs hitting the side of the backboard from the corner. Tatum looked off the whole time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I get that. But we're talking about Tatum as if he is an end of teh bench scrub playing against the best in the world, and finding him minutes was so tough. The team we are talking about -- Serbia -- had 2 NBA players on it. They are a good team, but if the US is struggling against them, then maybe those players that ARE getting playing team aren't doing a great job. Serbia may have the best player, but the US had the next best dozen. So the notion that we have to play very specific lineups and Tatum doesn't play because he is a bad matchup -- when truly, how many guys on Serbia are better than Tatum -- is misplaced. It's not like he had to play the 5 and cover Jokic.

---

I'm sure that Kerr could have found a way to play Tatum and still win - especially in the first Serbia game. But his goal wasn't to play Tatum, it was to win. Tatum had a negative +/- in the two games leading up to the Olympics, DNP'd the first game, then started and had a negative +/- in a blowout win vs. South Sudan. He had a negative +/- in the final, despite it being another double digit US win. In the two games he was on the positive side of +/-, every single person on the team was positive in both games (save maybe Halliburton in one of them). He didn't have a game where he was over 50% from the field and shot 38% for the tournament. The game before his second DNP, he was 1/5 for 5 points in 20 minutes.

I think that Tatum is a really good player, but besides giving him "respect" or playing him because of NBA awards, it doesn't seem egregious that he wasn't getting tons of minutes over other guys on the team. Now, you can argue that him not playing well was due to Kerr misusing him somehow, but given that the team was successful, you would have to believe that the changes needed to get the best out of Tatum would have made the team better overall. Unless you just are saying "Kerr could have put him in for 3 min to avoid the indignity of a NDP-CD".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusBrody

I'm sure that Kerr could have found a way to play Tatum and still win - especially in the first Serbia game. But his goal wasn't to play Tatum, it was to win. Tatum had a negative +/- in the two games leading up to the Olympics, DNP'd the first game, then started and had a negative +/- in a blowout win vs. South Sudan. He had a negative +/- in the final, despite it being another double digit US win. In the two games he was on the positive side of +/-, every single person on the team was positive in both games (save maybe Halliburton in one of them). He didn't have a game where he was over 50% from the field and shot 38% for the tournament. The game before his second DNP, he was 1/5 for 5 points in 20 minutes.

I think that Tatum is a really good player, but besides giving him "respect" or playing him because of NBA awards, it doesn't seem egregious that he wasn't getting tons of minutes over other guys on the team. Now, you can argue that him not playing well was due to Kerr misusing him somehow, but given that the team was successful, you would have to believe that the changes needed to get the best out of Tatum would have made the team better overall. Unless you just are saying "Kerr could have put him in for 3 min to avoid the indignity of a NDP-CD".

---

My point is definitely not that he should have been getting tons of minutes over other guys, it is definitely much more your last sentence. I would also argue that the team wasn't all that successful. Yes, they won the gold medal and ultimately that is all that matters. But they were playing inferior teams and struggling to beat them, so playing him or not playing him doesn't seem like the linchpin to winning or losing. Now, I am not saying that playing Tatum more would have changed the team performance, not at all. I am saying that clinging to this notion that they won so obviously everything Kerr did was right seems misguided. And given that, given that they were not actually playing that well and Kerr was going with a big rotation to begin with, then yeah, as a matter of respect you don't give him 2 DNP-CDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

My point is definitely not that he should have been getting tons of minutes over other guys, it is definitely much more your last sentence. I would also argue that the team wasn't all that successful. Yes, they won the gold medal and ultimately that is all that matters. But they were playing inferior teams and struggling to beat them, so playing him or not playing him doesn't seem like the linchpin to winning or losing. Now, I am not saying that playing Tatum more would have changed the team performance, not at all. I am saying that clinging to this notion that they won so obviously everything Kerr did was right seems misguided. And given that, given that they were not actually playing that well and Kerr was going with a big rotation to begin with, then yeah, as a matter of respect you don't give him 2 DNP-CDs.

---

I mean, they only struggled in one game (Serbia), while playing against the best player in the world and a set of hot shooting teammates. Even in the France game, they never really looked likely to lose (though France did make it a bit spicy getting it down to 3). The friendlies in the run up weren't great, but they pretty much cruised in the actual Olympics save the second Serbia game. And in that game, once they went down, I think Kerr had to play the team that he felt provided the best chance to comeback, so no real qualms there about doing what he felt he needed to do. As I think I mentioned earlier, I don't know why he couldn't find a few minutes in the first Serbia game, though, as the US was up big in the fourth and I'd imagine that you'd want everyone to get their feet under them. It was kind of odd to see Tatum get a DNP then follow it with a start.

International basketball competition is a lot better now vs then. Players on teams like France and Serbia also have more playing time together as a team, often years, compared with Team USA who only have weeks to prepare for the Olympics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Uh, did you see the post I responded to? You're taking mine out of context if you think I am saying anything but the same as you, that it's perfectly reasonable to analyze and criticize his choices; insulating him from any criticism because "he knows better" is what I was calling a clown take. FFS.

And this is not the NBA, this is the Olympics and the national team filled with NBA all stars sacrificing their time to be there. It is nowhere near the same as "getting on his case for benching a player" as if this was the Warriors and he was benching Kuminga. And I guaran-damn-fucking-tee you that had he benched, for ex, Curry because he shot 1-9 against South Sudan you would have been screaming about how terrible that move is.

All I am saying is that this is a different situation than his normal team, and constructing rosters and lineups within these rosters should have more considerations than "what is the very best first team and second team I can put together and damn everything else." Everyone has to take a different approach to what they normally do, players have to facilitate for others more, focus on different things, etc, and I think the coach should similarly be focused on different things. And to a certain extent he was, for sure; I just think he didn't do it enough.

---

UHHHH Dude , you’re a next level clown complaining you were taken out of context in responding to my claim which you took out of context. Congrats and take a lap in your clown car if there’s room for your ego. Ffs

Tattum’s 3 point shot was off for all of the playoffs and a while before they started. I had read he needs wrist surgery. If it is the case he put it off to play in the Olympics. Because he has such a calm demeanor I don’t think fans of other teams realize how tough he is. He rarely misses games and plays through injury not talking about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

International basketball competition is a lot better now vs then. Players on teams like France and Serbia also have more playing time together as a team, often years, compared with Team USA who only have weeks to prepare for the Olympics.

---

This, especially. Then, FIBA is different. Tatum played behind 1st team All-Stars. Kerr actually does know what he’s doing, as does Lu, Spoelstra, Few, Grant, and all the staff.
Et-fucking-cetera. On-and-fucking-on. (I like Tatum, BTW, but if I’m being nice, the US team just had no time to just try somebody out and see how they work, and believe me they did it in the few practices they had).

Attachment 498150


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Interesting pod: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0UC...SGO6zeKyAghP3g

Would be curious to see what people say after listening to the podcast.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Attachment 498379


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Kinda wild that my feed was full of people who didn’t know who Kerr was.

It’s still crazy to think about Kerr getting taunted in college with “PLO” and “Where’s Your Father” chants after his dad was assassinated. Possibly the most fucked up taunt in sports history. I’d want to bomb the whole damn arena in his shoes.

Bump.

My first instinct was that the trade made sense for both teams, but after thinking about it... this is great for the Knicks and not so great for Minnesota. I understand why Minnesota felt like they needed to do something, but a front court of Gobert and Randle is gonna be brick city.

It basically means no teams wanted Gobert and his contract, so they had to move KAT instead.

Did the Knicks get better by adding Towns? Given health, they’re probably a better playoff matchup, but they lose depth and that may hurt them in the regular season.

And, did the T-Wolves get rid of Towns a year too early? They went far last year and Edwards can keep improving. I know they wanted to get off almost $50M a year salary, but I don’t think Randle makes them better in 24-25. DDV is a nice add, but putting Randle next to Gobert doesn’t work well. They’re gonna need to play Naz Reid with Randle more often.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

For Minnesota this trade was 100% brought to you by our sponsors: the 2nd Apron.

yeah, it was news to me... it's going to take a few years for teams to adjust to the new rules. there are going to be some weird trades coming up