Phx-Suns.Net

Jabari was deceptively athletic to me. I was surprised at some of the dunks he was getting right before the injury. Jabari had came to mind with Tatum, but was more athletic and played at about 230. Granger is a better comparison I think. Except for weight, Jabari and Tatum have identical measurables.

Yeah, Jabari's leaping ability is (was?) very deceptive. He doesn't look at all like he can explode the way he does. One of the most lowkey 20ppg scorers with no apparent flaw to his offensive game once his range has expanded.

This is slightly off-topic, but with a lot of talk about possibly picking Jackson, Tatum or Isaac, I think there is a good chance that TJ could have a mini blow up this year. I could definitely see him up his PER to 18 or 19 this season.

In2ition wrote:This is slightly off-topic, but with a lot of talk about possibly picking Jackson, Tatum or Isaac, I think there is a good chance that TJ could have a mini blow up this year. I could definitely see him up his PER to 18 or 19 this season.

He's had those the last two years. He's a good player. We're just waiting for him to stay healthy and get that 3pt shot going in consistently.

I just think Booker is the only one on the team who is good enough to say "we don't need anyone at his position." Besides, I think Isaac will be playing center in a couple of years.

Warren's defense really progressed this year. I don't see why we should be so hasty to move on from him.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I agree about being higher on Warren than most here seem to be. His offensive game is wonderful, and it's a great complement to ball-dominant guys like Booker. Warren can hit from the mid-range with far above average skill, and he's just crafty about making the ball go in the basket. I love having him out there. I really wish he could become a net-positive three-point shooter; that would be huge for his game. Defensively he has a way to go, but so does almost everybody on the roster, and he's young.

While I still think we should probably draft Jackson at this point, it'd be as a backup to Warren, and as an insurance policy so that we can see which of the two (if either) develops into a stud SF who can be our starter years from now. It'd take a lot of pressure off of Jackson to play the backup and get maybe 12-16 minutes a game as a rookie, so he can learn how the NBA game works without being just thrown to the wolves as a starter.

Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

This year's draft is supposed to be deep enough that whomever we get at 4 should be getting some decent playing time.

The thing I like about Warren is that he moves well without the ball. One of the few on our team that currently has that skill.

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I agree about being higher on Warren than most here seem to be. His offensive game is wonderful, and it's a great complement to ball-dominant guys like Booker. Warren can hit from the mid-range with far above average skill, and he's just crafty about making the ball go in the basket. I love having him out there. I really wish he could become a net-positive three-point shooter; that would be huge for his game. Defensively he has a way to go, but so does almost everybody on the roster, and he's young.

While I still think we should probably draft Jackson at this point, it'd be as a backup to Warren, and as an insurance policy so that we can see which of the two (if either) develops into a stud SF who can be our starter years from now. It'd take a lot of pressure off of Jackson to play the backup and get maybe 12-16 minutes a game as a rookie, so he can learn how the NBA game works without being just thrown to the wolves as a starter.

Jackson is ready to play right now. If we draft him, I'd play him 25 minutes minimum.

Split T wrote:
Jackson is ready to play right now. If we draft him, I'd play him 25 minutes minimum.

Ok. Then give me your minutes distribution for Ulis, Bender, Warren & Chriss.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

I wasn't advocating one over the other. I was saying that no matter who it is, we should be giving high draft picks plenty of court time or we are doing them (and us) a disservice.

carey wrote:

Split T wrote:
Jackson is ready to play right now. If we draft him, I'd play him 25 minutes minimum.

Ok. Then give me your minutes distribution for Ulis, Bender, Warren & Chriss.

I think Bender has to play significant minutes at the 5 next year.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Chriss was better and more prepared for minutes than bender. In hindsight, our season was never going to end in making the playoffs and we should have played bender more, but I don't see how we could have handled them the same. They both couldn't start at pf. Chriss was better, he got the minutes. Bender unfortunately got scraps and was forced to play out of position. That was the risk of drafting two young guys at the same position.

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

And for god's sake, man, remove that damn signature from your phone!

Split T wrote:

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Chriss was better and more prepared for minutes than bender. In hindsight, our season was never going to end in making the playoffs and we should have played bender more, but I don't see how we could have handled them the same. They both couldn't start at pf. Chriss was better, he got the minutes. Bender unfortunately got scraps and was forced to play out of position. That was the risk of drafting two young guys at the same position.

I don't agree. He was certainly more aggressive (which is great), but he was so often completely out of the play on the defensive side, and was never looking to share the ball on offense. He came a long way over the season, but early on it was clear that Bender knew where to be and how to share the ball. It was either his timidity, or Watson's preference for Chriss, that determined rotations; it wasn't who was more prepared.

Bledsoe - 34mpg
Ulis - 14mpg
Booker - 34mpg
LB- 12mpg
Jackson - 24mpg
Warren - 28mpg
Chriss- 30mpg
Bender - 18mpg
Dudley - 6mpg
Chandler - 26mpg
Williams - 14mpg

Center is the question mark. Do we keep Chandler? If so, I think 28-30mpg is fine. Who's his backup? Len? Williams? A free agent? Chriss? I think Dudley could be the odd man out.

carey wrote:

Split T wrote:
Jackson is ready to play right now. If we draft him, I'd play him 25 minutes minimum.

Ok. Then give me your minutes distribution for Ulis, Bender, Warren & Chriss.

Hard to do without knowing the final makeup of the team. But I'll take a shot.

Booker and Bled will get 35 minutes each. 25 for Jackson, Chriss and Chandler. Ulis probably gets 20, Warren gets 25, bender gets 20. That leaves 30 minutes for Dudley, Barbosa, Williams, len, Jones Jr or whoever is also on the team.

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:

carey wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:Fwiw I'm not interested in taking another guy at #4 and not even giving him 20 min a game. Had enough of that last year.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Agreed. If we think we should be spending back to back drafts with a guy in the top 5, and not play them +20mpg, then we should just trade down. As much as I hated that we didn't play Bender last year, you have to acknowledge the huge benefit of playing Chriss so much. He improved by leaps and bounds from November to April.

Sure but who's to say that wouldn't have been Bender had we said "You're our starting PF & it's ok if you fail sometimes." We handled him totally contrary to that & I'm not sure why one player was given a different set of rules to play by than another.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Chriss was better and more prepared for minutes than bender. In hindsight, our season was never going to end in making the playoffs and we should have played bender more, but I don't see how we could have handled them the same. They both couldn't start at pf. Chriss was better, he got the minutes. Bender unfortunately got scraps and was forced to play out of position. That was the risk of drafting two young guys at the same position.

I don't agree. He was certainly more aggressive (which is great), but he was so often completely out of the play on the defensive side, and was never looking to share the ball on offense. He came a long way over the season, but early on it was clear that Bender knew where to be and how to share the ball. It was either his timidity, or Watson's preference for Chriss, that determined rotations; it wasn't who was more prepared.

Chriss had 1.5 NBA ready skills. His athletic ability could be used right from the start. He also was decent at spreading the floor.

I agree bender knew where to be, understood rotations, etc. more than Chriss, but bender didn't really add much. He may have not been a negative, he kept the ball moving, rotated etc. But he never put pressure on the defense. He wasn't a threat from the perimeter, he's not a threat at the rim. He just kinda keeps the flow going. I think he'll be more useful surrounded by better players.

Chriss definitely was a negative in some areas, mostly defense, but he put pressure on the defense. They had to respect his ability to finish at the rim and, to an extent, from 3.