InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
If you're talking to me, then yes, I'm omniscient, if doing one's homework and having one's theory coming true is omniscient.Are you omniscient?
If you're talking to me, then yes, I'm omniscient, if doing one's homework and having one's theory coming true is omniscient.Are you omniscient?
If you're talking to me, then yes, I'm omniscient, if doing one's homework and having one's theory coming true is omniscient.
If you're talking to me, then yes, I'm omniscient...KrazeeEyezKilla said:Are you omniscient?
If you were really omniscient, you would know whether he's talking to you or not. ;-)
There is a huge difference that most fans do not understand about big men. You need to have a wide frame to put on more weight. i have said this multiple times on this board.
Tomic is a small frame. Not just average or barely below average. He has a very slender frame. He cannot put on much weight. He will get pushed around in the NBA. He also is not quick enough to blow past NBA PF's. And he is way too thin to play Center.
Gasol has a wide frame. He might be skinny when you look at them but his frame is much wider and this allows him to get his shot off easier. And allows him to put on more weight. Which Gasol did and he did not lose quickness.
Tomic won't stay in the NBA. He will play 3 years than realize he can't handle the NBA game. Fesenko is a NBA center. Tomic is a PF in the NBA but a weak one.
Kudos for actually acknowledging that you had missed the mark on Fesenko already. What is amusing is that you seem to be following it up with underrating him again. To the Jazz's benefit, he fell slightly short of getting a multiyear deal elsewhere this summer, which would suggest that he is already on the verge of staying the league for a while (although the rumored lockout might derail that dream)--or that his agent was overly ambitious of his value. I predict the former.I projected that Fes would be out of the league by now, as it stands it seems that he is going to hang around the league for a little longer. I'm not sure if that is so because we really saw some light in him or simply because our financial situation didn't allow us to sign anything better. I think it was rather the latter one, but when Fes went out to test the market and learned the hard way that there was no to little demand for his lazy arse, he seems to realize that he is in a tight spot and he started to put some more effort into his game as the last couple of games prove.
I think if he continues to work this way he has a good shot to contribute this year and then get some long term contract extension after this season. He is still a kid and there will certainly be some jackpotting going around, but he better start to grow up though, because there is some serious competition now in Elson who is certainly no koufos and Memo Okur is also not dead just yet.
To the Jazz's benefit, he fell slightly short of getting a multiyear deal elsewhere this summer, which would suggest that he is already on the verge of staying the league for a while (although the rumored lockout might derail that dream)--or that his agent was overly ambitious of his value.
I didn't say that. More closely the opposite. Fegan probably could've gotten Fes a multiyear deal at the minimum, but he knew that that's a lowball.So, that Fesenko failed to get a contract means that 1) he's going to be in the leagur for a long time, and 2) his agent (Dan Fegan, of all people) is incompetant at estimating his value. It has nothing to do with Fesenko's inferior development of his skills and attributes in prior seasons. Circular logic, indeed.
I didn't say that.
As for Fes's "inferior development of his skills", Utah benefitted moneywise in the short term--this year only--by keeping his minutes low in previous years.
Oh, OK. I'm beginning to understand the disconnect here. If the player truly sucks, in-game experience isn't enough, but no player--from LeBron to Kevin Lyde--is immune from the need for in-game experience. I'm baffled that such a fundamental concept is controversial in your mind. Repeatedly it was reported in games that the likes of CJ and KK were great shooters in practice (i.e., getting their skills "developed on the practice floor") but stunk it up in games. Eventually the shooting slumps became more infrequent. Matthews was a dismal shooter at the beginning of his rookie season and started to get it together at the end. Same goes for Deron Williams regarding his ability to distribut the ball from the beginning of his rookie season to the end--and beyond (except that within-season progress is probably a more robust measure because it doesn't allow for much free training time outside practice--and less practice overall). Recently, Shaquille (a notorious anti-practice player) was reported to have been making free throws in practice, but it is unlikely that it translates to games until he gets the experience with whatever technique he is using.As I made clear above, I fully reject your notion that skills are developed in-game. They are developed on the practice floor. Fesenko has no one to blame for inferior skill development but himself.
Oh, OK. I'm beginning to understand the disconnect here. If the player truly sucks, in-game experience isn't enough, but no player--from LeBron to Kevin Lyde--is immune from the need for in-game experience. I'm baffled that such a fundamental concept is controversial in your mind.
You seem to think that if a player does not "truly suck", on-court is the primary place to improve. However, on-court experience is meaningless if you don'thave the skills to use, and the skills are meaningless if you don't havethe raw attributes to use them correctly.While there are some things you learn on the court (vision, timing, poise), you develop your skills (shooting, passing, lateral movement) on the pratice floor and raw attributes (strength, endurance, speed) in the gym.
Repeatedly it was reported in games that the likes of CJ and KK were great shooters in practice (i.e., getting their skills "developed on the practice floor") but stunk it up in games. Eventually the shooting slumps became more infrequent.
If that doesn't suggest to you that on-court experience isn't crucial and possibly a primary factor for player development, I don't know how to help you.
By the way, Allen Iverson just called to remind you that he had a long career of multiple All-Star appearances in the NBA even though he could care less about practice.
Addendum: Jazz pregame show comments on how Al is trying not to overthink things when he's on the court. Looks like "practice" isn't sufficient for this 6-year veteran, either,
KF has gotta get the TOs down, but part of those came from passing the ball, which is a promising--um--development.
Um, what's the difference between "raw attributes" to mean "talent". Fes had enough "talent" and skills to play more last year; as mentioned before, he had a better body than Ostertag or Okur even before the weight loss, and he wasn't terrible agilitywise. He was pulling down rebounds and logging some blocked shots and scoring some very easy baskets. The biggest thing he needed was to play during games where he could get a better feel of the offense and how to handle opposing bigs, etc. Practice attempts to simulate that, but it falls short, and as I have so eloquently stated previously, even the best players are not immune from needing on-court time to refine those skills. I dispute the notion that Fes was such a goof off in practice to preclude him from playing more in games, because when he was on the court, he was playing like most inexperienced big men--making some mistakes yet doing some good things, too. Repeatedly it was documented that he limited the opponents' inside scoring better than the alternatives, and that should've been enough IMHO to get him more PT, because that was arguably the Jazz's #1 problem.Actually, I spelled out a few things specifically related to experience. Here's a reminder: You seem to think that if a player does not "truly suck", on-court is the primary place to improve. However, on-court experience is meaningless if you don'thave the skills to use, and the skills are meaningless if you don't havethe raw attributes to use them correctly.
Um, what's the difference between "raw attributes" to mean "talent".
Fes had enough "talent" and skills to play more last year; as mentioned before, he had a better body than Ostertag or Okur even before the weight loss, and he wasn't terrible agilitywise.
He was pulling down rebounds and logging some blocked shots and scoring some very easy baskets. The biggest thing he needed was to play during games where he could get a better feel of the offense and how to handle opposing bigs, etc.
... they are also supporting the notion that playing time was a necessary condition for improving.
Confirmation bias. You interpret everything you see in this regard under the initial assumption that the most important development factor is playing time, rather than allow for the evidence to dictate the importance of playing time.
Yeah, Eric, for S2, anything and everything that happens proves his point, even if those things are polar opposites. Fess didn't play much last year, but had a decent series against Denver when Memo went down. Then he kinda fell apart against LA. So how does S2 reconcile alla this?
Well, after screaming all year that Fess couldn't "develop" without more playing time, once the completely "undeveloped" Fess plays decent againt Denver, S2 says it "proves" what he has been saying all along--that Sloan should have played Fess more (because he is too good to leave on the bench). How it is even remotely possible for Fess to play well without extended in-game experience is not addressed by S2 at that point, of course.
Then when Fess falls down against LA, it once again proves his point as he reverts to his (now contradictory) claim that Sloan prevented him from developing and should have played him more.
At times S2 talks likes he believes in-game experience is a fully sufficient condition for NBA success--as if a 3-year old, if just allowed to play 30 minutes a game for a few years, would then be a fully competent NBA player. When pressed, of course, he backs off this absurd suggestion, but he often implies it nonetheless.
He does consistently suggest that it is a necessary, if not sufficifient, condition for NBA success, however. So how can guys like Lebrron and Durant come straight to the NBA from high school or a year of college and be amongst the league's best? Where did their "development" come from, if not actual NBA games? Big-*** mystery, there, know what I'm sayin?
Every player, at any level, high school, college, pro, or whatever, will get better with time, as long as they keep practicing, playing (even pick-up games), studying the game, working on conditioning, etc., even if they are the 12th man off the bench. If Fess is better after 4-5 years of additional maturation, practice, hard physical work, etc., then that proves to S2 that he should have played from day 1, and would have, if only he had been allowed to play in a Denver series his first year, however raw.
Kinda comfy when your whole thought pattern is "heads I win, tails you lose," eh? Seems to work for S2, anyway.