The Truth is OUT

Hello, Dillon Brooks!

Recommended Posts

BnaBreaker    0

A short, stubby, slow tweener with average athleticism, that can't rebound or defend?  Yeah...  I like the kid... I love his fearlessness on the court... l sincerely hope he proves me wrong... but I'm not optimistic about his prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ndq0327    0
15 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

A short, stubby, slow tweener with average athleticism, that can't rebound or defend?  Yeah...  I like the kid... I love his fearlessness on the court... l sincerely hope he proves me wrong... but I'm not optimistic about his prospects.

What draft profile did you regurgitate that from I wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

So who's going to stop the ball dominant scorers now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herodotus    0
2 hours ago, chipc3 said:

So who's going to stop the ball dominant scorers now?

Actual Answer: No one (but it doesn't matter as much as it might have in the past).

Chris Wallace/Front Office Answer: Wayne Selden will fill the role, but not as well as Tony did.

Reality: Most good teams don't have a stopper/shut down closer guy, they have several good two-way players and good schemes. Really only the most elite, premier teams have a shut down defender like Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green, or Lebron James. A shut down/closer type guy isn't a precondition to success.

(Note: If anyone thinks Tony Allen would have had a prayer of making things better against Kawhi Leonard in that series against the Spurs, they're deluded. Kawhi was looking like the best player in the Playoffs until he got injured. It was a real shame that happened, because the Spurs might have knocked off the Warriors in a fair fight).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
15 hours ago, Herodotus said:

Reality: Most good teams don't have a stopper/shut down closer guy, they have several good two-way players and good schemes. Really only the most elite, premier teams have a shut down defender like Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green, or Lebron James. A shut down/closer type guy isn't a precondition to success.

 

 

Elite teams have a shut down defender but not having a shut down defender isn't a pre-condition for success? 

I guess it depends on your definition of success then. I assume elite teams are successful ones. When I look at most playoff teams they have elite defenders on their rosters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herodotus    0
1 hour ago, chipc3 said:

Elite teams have a shut down defender but not having a shut down defender isn't a pre-condition for success? 

I guess it depends on your definition of success then. I assume elite teams are successful ones. When I look at most playoff teams they have elite defenders on their rosters. 

 

Chip, you know, these basketball conversations are fun, but it would be nice if you might look a little bit more for the merit/value in what someone says, rather than having to parse the definition of what seems like every term in the English language at times.

I was distinguishing between "elite" level teams and being " successful." Of course we might have different definitions of success. When I used the term, I'm not referring to winning a championship. I think the Grizzlies have been a top-6 to -10 team in the NBA over the past several seasons - shall we say, the Grit n Grind Era. That, I hope everyone agrees, has been a tremendous run of success. I'm talking about generally maintaining that level of success, as a Playoff team in the Western Conference, and being one of the top-6 -10 teams in the league. In the ultra-teams era, defining success in Memphis as being a championship contender is simply unrealistic. When I said, "elite," I was referring to those top-4 or so franchises that are realistic championship contenders, of which we are not one. So, I hope we all have some kind of similar definition of the word "success" that does not include being a championship contender.

From there, I think if you look at that first tier of teams who actually are championship contenders (the elite), they have shut down defenders who are also MVP or All-NBA caliber players (Kawhi, Draymond, Lebron, etc.). In other words, not just wing defenders playing that particular role, but surpassingly excellent, elite players on both ends. They also tend to have a decent enough stack of 3-and-D guys, of course, but even then the D is not necessarily shutdown defender level. If you look at the second-tier of teams, of which we are a part, I think you'll be hard pressed to conclude that a single-role, shut down defender guy is any kind of requisite. There's also a distinction between the 3-and-D guys, which are very valuable in today's NBA, and the wing defender/middling offense guy (the guy who isn't really a 3-and-D, typically because he can't hit the 3). When you get down into the second tier of teams, there are some of both, but the wing defender/middling offense guy is truly less valuable than a true 3-and-D. For example, Boston just ditched Avery Bradley, which I think demonstrates about how valuable that wing defender/middling offense type of player actually is - valuable, sure, but not a requisite. 

Remember, the entire premise here is that you don't have to have a shut down wing defender to be successful. It's even more true if that guy is a middling offense guy and not a 3-and-D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

I was using elite defender as any position not just wings. Utah has an elite defender in Rudy Gobert for instance. He's not a wing but his defensive presence makes it easier for everyone to play tighter on the perimeter. Tony was an elite defender on the wing and clearly Memphis has lost that type of player. Marc Gasol is a good team defensive player but he isn't an elite defender like Gobert. 

To be successful you need someone who is elite in my eyes. The Clippers have DeAndre Jordan, Spurs have Leonard, Warriors have Green, Rockets haven't got a true elite defender but Ariza isn't bad. 

Then you have the next group that includes Memphis, Portland, Denver and possibly Minnesota. Do they have anyone who can be considered elite or even strong defensively? They are or have been .500 or below teams. I believe there is a connection. I disagree with the premise that not having an elite defender is that important. At best teams can only be a .500 team without an elite defensive presence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herodotus said:

 

Chip, you know, these basketball conversations are fun, but it would be nice if you might look a little bit more for the merit/value in what someone says, rather than having to parse the definition of what seems like every term in the English language at times.

I was distinguishing between "elite" level teams and being " successful." Of course we might have different definitions of success. When I used the term, I'm not referring to winning a championship. I think the Grizzlies have been a top-6 to -10 team in the NBA over the past several seasons - shall we say, the Grit n Grind Era. That, I hope everyone agrees, has been a tremendous run of success. I'm talking about generally maintaining that level of success, as a Playoff team in the Western Conference, and being one of the top-6 -10 teams in the league. In the ultra-teams era, defining success in Memphis as being a championship contender is simply unrealistic. When I said, "elite," I was referring to those top-4 or so franchises that are realistic championship contenders, of which we are not one. So, I hope we all have some kind of similar definition of the word "success" that does not include being a championship contender.

From there, I think if you look at that first tier of teams who actually are championship contenders (the elite), they have shut down defenders who are also MVP or All-NBA caliber players (Kawhi, Draymond, Lebron, etc.). In other words, not just wing defenders playing that particular role, but surpassingly excellent, elite players on both ends. They also tend to have a decent enough stack of 3-and-D guys, of course, but even then the D is not necessarily shutdown defender level. If you look at the second-tier of teams, of which we are a part, I think you'll be hard pressed to conclude that a single-role, shut down defender guy is any kind of requisite. There's also a distinction between the 3-and-D guys, which are very valuable in today's NBA, and the wing defender/middling offense guy (the guy who isn't really a 3-and-D, typically because he can't hit the 3). When you get down into the second tier of teams, there are some of both, but the wing defender/middling offense guy is truly less valuable than a true 3-and-D. For example, Boston just ditched Avery Bradley, which I think demonstrates about how valuable that wing defender/middling offense type of player actually is - valuable, sure, but not a requisite. 

Remember, the entire premise here is that you don't have to have a shut down wing defender to be successful. It's even more true if that guy is a middling offense guy and not a 3-and-D.

I get what you're saying but Avery Bradley was a silly example of a "middling" offensive player.  He was the second leading scorer on the team with the best record in their conference and shot a higher percentage from three than their leading scorer, Isaiah Thomas.  He was their second most reliable three-point volume shooter after Crowder who was less than 1% better, while being their team's best perimeter defender.  I don't know about you but I'm guessing that every team in the league would love to have a guy who can put up over 16 ppg shooting 39% from three while being a defensive stalwart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BnaBreaker    0
On 7/22/2017 at 5:51 PM, Ndq0327 said:

What draft profile did you regurgitate that from I wonder

Uh, surely you saw him play during Summer League.  The guy was having a hard time staying in front of D League caliber forwards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herodotus    0
4 hours ago, smit-tay griz said:

I get what you're saying but Avery Bradley was a silly example of a "middling" offensive player.  He was the second leading scorer on the team with the best record in their conference and shot a higher percentage from three than their leading scorer, Isaiah Thomas.  He was their second most reliable three-point volume shooter after Crowder who was less than 1% better, while being their team's best perimeter defender.  I don't know about you but I'm guessing that every team in the league would love to have a guy who can put up over 16 ppg shooting 39% from three while being a defensive stalwart.

Yeah, but, that's exactly my point. Avery Bradley is better than middling, which proves the point that the value of middling guys is even less than his. The consensus wisdom is that Avery Bradley's special or elite skill is defense (even if that conception is over-hyped, it still is the conception). And even a wing defender as offensively gifted as Avery Bradley isn't considered to be indispensable (at least by Danny Ainge and the Celtics; even after their deepest run since Pierce, Garnett, and Allen). 

 

 

4 hours ago, chipc3 said:

I was using elite defender as any position not just wings. Utah has an elite defender in Rudy Gobert for instance. He's not a wing but his defensive presence makes it easier for everyone to play tighter on the perimeter. Tony was an elite defender on the wing and clearly Memphis has lost that type of player. Marc Gasol is a good team defensive player but he isn't an elite defender like Gobert. 

To be successful you need someone who is elite in my eyes. The Clippers have DeAndre Jordan, Spurs have Leonard, Warriors have Green, Rockets haven't got a true elite defender but Ariza isn't bad. 

Then you have the next group that includes Memphis, Portland, Denver and possibly Minnesota. Do they have anyone who can be considered elite or even strong defensively? They are or have been .500 or below teams. I believe there is a connection. I disagree with the premise that not having an elite defender is that important. At best teams can only be a .500 team without an elite defensive presence. 

 

I thought about getting into the defensive, rim protecting center role. To me, it's really a separate conversation, because DeAndre Jordan and Rudy Gobert are not shutting anyone down one-on-one as their principal skill (that is, Tony Allen was seen going mano-a-mano against the other team's best scorer and playmaker, from Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook, to Kevin Durant, etc. - these centers aren't doing that). Maybe if the League still had players like Shaq and Olajuwon, their roles and value would more resemble that of the prototypical shutdown wing defender, but, as you said, what they provide is an anchor to a team defensive scheme. 

The Grizzlies bucked a lot of trends to get to where we have been, one of them being that we opted for an athletically challenged, offensively skilled center while the rest of the league was looking for superior athletes who could block shots, position defend, getout and rotate and recover on a pick and roll, rebound, and not turn the ball over on offense. It's how we ended up making the Thabeet gaffe (really, one of the more stunning draft busts ever - he was never asked to do anything other than block shots and rebound and it was truly incredible that he couldn't do it at an NBA level with the physical tools he had; not denying reality, just saying, it was truly mind-boggling, the gap between, not just how good he could have been and how terrible he was in reality, but how low the bar was for him in terms of making a real NBA career for himself and the fact that he couldn't achieve even that). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chipc3 said:

Elite teams have a shut down defender but not having a shut down defender isn't a pre-condition for success? 

I guess it depends on your definition of success then. I assume elite teams are successful ones. When I look at most playoff teams they have elite defenders on their rosters. 

So, what? The grizzlies should get TA back stat who's so amazing he still doesn't have a contract?

 

What the elite teams have are not elite defenders but elite 2 way players like Kawhi, Draymond, Iguodala, Lebron, Avery Bradley, John Wall, Chris Paul etc

 

Elite wing defenders who can't space the floor are liabilities in the post-season often times

 

See:

 

Allen, Tony

Roberson, Andre

Smart, Marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
10 hours ago, Grizzfan7979 said:

So, what? The grizzlies should get TA back stat who's so amazing he still doesn't have a contract?

 

What the elite teams have are not elite defenders but elite 2 way players like Kawhi, Draymond, Iguodala, Lebron, Avery Bradley, John Wall, Chris Paul etc

 

Elite wing defenders who can't space the floor are liabilities in the post-season often times

 

See:

 

Allen, Tony

Roberson, Andre

Smart, Marcus

Elite teams have superstars but it isn't a coincidence in my mind that elite defensive players make the difference between average to below average teams and playoff teams. Using your examples Tony Allen, Andre Roberson and Marcus Smart all play for playoff teams. I don't believe it is a coincidence. 

Does that mean the Grizzlies should bring back Tony Allen? Not really. If teams want to alter themselves to become stronger in the future sacrifices have to be made. I believe Tony and Z-Bo could help the team win a few more games than not having them will this season but eventually changes have to be made. Perhaps this will turn out to be the ideal time to make such a change. Perhaps the Grizzlies already have a player or two that can make fans forget about their former fan favorites. I hope they do. 

Either way, the change had to be made at some point and this summer seems like as good a time as any. The team made strong runs with the former cast but they are clearly past their prime now and the team is moving in a different direction to attempt a new run at the top. I hope they are successful and the youth they brought in more than makes up for the experience they let go. It may take a season or two of course but it was a decision that had to be made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herodotus    0
3 hours ago, chipc3 said:

Elite teams have superstars but it isn't a coincidence in my mind that elite defensive players make the difference between average to below average teams and playoff teams. Using your examples Tony Allen, Andre Roberson and Marcus Smart all play for playoff teams. I don't believe it is a coincidence. 

Does that mean the Grizzlies should bring back Tony Allen? Not really. If teams want to alter themselves to become stronger in the future sacrifices have to be made. I believe Tony and Z-Bo could help the team win a few more games than not having them will this season but eventually changes have to be made. Perhaps this will turn out to be the ideal time to make such a change. Perhaps the Grizzlies already have a player or two that can make fans forget about their former fan favorites. I hope they do. 

Either way, the change had to be made at some point and this summer seems like as good a time as any. The team made strong runs with the former cast but they are clearly past their prime now and the team is moving in a different direction to attempt a new run at the top. I hope they are successful and the youth they brought in more than makes up for the experience they let go. It may take a season or two of course but it was a decision that had to be made. 

It's remarkable how much we actually agree, actually.

Of course the elite teams have elite defenses. That has been a truism/Law of the NBA for decades. And, of course, those elite defenses are usually comprised of one or some elite individual defenders.

I think where there is some disagreement is on this issue of whether, specifically, the Grizzlies can maintain success without Tony Allen, or more broadly, whether a team can be a Playoff team, or an above-average team, in today's NBA without an elite wing stopper. (I'm throwing out the issue of defensive center, because, as I said, that's not really the same discussion as the perimeter defender, and including centers in the conversation not only gets away from my original argument, but also broadens the discussion to such an extent that it somewhat meaninglessly devolves into a conversation about the value of defense generally). So, with that said, while wing defense is of course valuable, and is a consideration for every NBA GM constructing a roster, I think it's pretty apparent across the league generally that, no, you do not have to have an "elite" wing stopper to be an above-average team, and that is ESPECIALLY true if you're talking about a role-playing wing defender that can't stretch the floor (isn't a true 3-and-D - in fact, how many examples of this even exist?).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

 

14 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

It's remarkable how much we actually agree, actually.

Of course the elite teams have elite defenses. That has been a truism/Law of the NBA for decades. And, of course, those elite defenses are usually comprised of one or some elite individual defenders.

I think where there is some disagreement is on this issue of whether, specifically, the Grizzlies can maintain success without Tony Allen, or more broadly, whether a team can be a Playoff team, or an above-average team, in today's NBA without an elite wing stopper. (I'm throwing out the issue of defensive center, because, as I said, that's not really the same discussion as the perimeter defender, and including centers in the conversation not only gets away from my original argument, but also broadens the discussion to such an extent that it somewhat meaninglessly devolves into a conversation about the value of defense generally). So, with that said, while wing defense is of course valuable, and is a consideration for every NBA GM constructing a roster, I think it's pretty apparent across the league generally that, no, you do not have to have an "elite" wing stopper to be an above-average team, and that is ESPECIALLY true if you're talking about a role-playing wing defender that can't stretch the floor (isn't a true 3-and-D - in fact, how many examples of this even exist?).
 

I never thought we were far apart. Once we clarified the different definitions we are very much in link with each other. 

Except in the final conclusion. When I look at the teams around the league that are in the playoffs I see a majority of them with exactly the type of player you say is unneeded. 

Golden State had Draymond and Klay Thompson, San Antonio had Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard, OKC had Andre Roberson, Memphis had Tony Allen, Houston had Trevor Ariza (and that's with a coach who could care less about defense) and the Clippers had Mbah a Moute.  

That leaves Utah with Gobert and the Blazers with no one as the only teams that don't have a defensive wing stopper on the roster from the West. 

In the East it's a little more fuzzy. Boston had Avery Bradley and Marcus Smart. Cleveland had Imam Shumpert. Milwaukee had the Greek Freak who's a mismatch at any wing spot and Tony Snell, Toronto had DeMarre Carroll and P J Tucker. Then again you have Atlanta (Dwight Howard in the paint) and Washington who really didn't have anyone on the wings who'd you consider a stopper. Indiana had Paul George and Lance Stephenson but are they really defensive stoppers? 

There are exceptions (especially in the East) where a team doesn't have a defense focused player but most teams do have someone who's main focus is simply to stop the other team's primary scoring threat. It is not a prerequisite but it is advisable. The only team that was considered good who didn't have standout wing defender was Washington last season. Even crazy offense Houston had Trevor Ariza who is an excellent perimeter defender. 

Which brings up back home. Is Selden defensively solid enough to fill that role for Memphis? His offense is superior to Allen's which helps his defense since whoever is guarding him has to actually play defense against him but I don't believe his resume has shown enough yet. I hope he is. I want him to be but it is a fair question to ask. McLemore has no history of playing defense. Parsons and Evans coming off 3 knee injuries are not the answer. Ennis has shown flashes but nothing consistent. Harrison is not as good defensively as Allen and possibly even worse offensively. Baldwin is worse than Harrison and Chalmers is coming off Achilles tendon surgery. 

That leaves Conley, who's already expected to pick up his scoring and run the offense, as the only perimeter defender of note on the roster and the team without an elite shot blocker on the inside. Everyone should be apprehensive right now. Not depressed or resigned but apprehensive seems called for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herodotus    0
1 hour ago, chipc3 said:

 

I never thought we were far apart. Once we clarified the different definitions we are very much in link with each other. 

Except in the final conclusion. When I look at the teams around the league that are in the playoffs I see a majority of them with exactly the type of player you say is unneeded. 

Golden State had Draymond and Klay Thompson, San Antonio had Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard, OKC had Andre Roberson, Memphis had Tony Allen, Houston had Trevor Ariza (and that's with a coach who could care less about defense) and the Clippers had Mbah a Moute.  

That leaves Utah with Gobert and the Blazers with no one as the only teams that don't have a defensive wing stopper on the roster from the West. 

In the East it's a little more fuzzy. Boston had Avery Bradley and Marcus Smart. Cleveland had Imam Shumpert. Milwaukee had the Greek Freak who's a mismatch at any wing spot and Tony Snell, Toronto had DeMarre Carroll and P J Tucker. Then again you have Atlanta (Dwight Howard in the paint) and Washington who really didn't have anyone on the wings who'd you consider a stopper. Indiana had Paul George and Lance Stephenson but are they really defensive stoppers? 

There are exceptions (especially in the East) where a team doesn't have a defense focused player but most teams do have someone who's main focus is simply to stop the other team's primary scoring threat. It is not a prerequisite but it is advisable. The only team that was considered good who didn't have standout wing defender was Washington last season. Even crazy offense Houston had Trevor Ariza who is an excellent perimeter defender. 

Which brings up back home. Is Selden defensively solid enough to fill that role for Memphis? His offense is superior to Allen's which helps his defense since whoever is guarding him has to actually play defense against him but I don't believe his resume has shown enough yet. I hope he is. I want him to be but it is a fair question to ask. McLemore has no history of playing defense. Parsons and Evans coming off 3 knee injuries are not the answer. Ennis has shown flashes but nothing consistent. Harrison is not as good defensively as Allen and possibly even worse offensively. Baldwin is worse than Harrison and Chalmers is coming off Achilles tendon surgery. 

That leaves Conley, who's already expected to pick up his scoring and run the offense, as the only perimeter defender of note on the roster and the team without an elite shot blocker on the inside. Everyone should be apprehensive right now. Not depressed or resigned but apprehensive seems called for. 

 

Yes, I do think we're in trouble in this department. You asked earlier, who is going to replace Tony Allen, and I said, "no one."

I do think Selden is definitely the role player the front office is hoping can be inserted in the lineup as required to match up against the athletic wing scorers. And our opinions of Selden appear to be nearly identical. The trouble with Selden being our new defensive guy, is not only that Selden isn't the defender that Tony was (also maybe an unrealistic standard, since peak-Tony really was an all-time great), but that, like Tony, Selden isn't really a 3-and-D guy either. His jumpshot is better than Tony's was, without question, but Selden's not a knockdown, catch-and-shoot killer.

I'm not as worried about Ben McLemore offensively as most seem to be. I think we got him on a very good contract, which matters in terms of whether he delivers value. I have a very high opinion of his catch-and-shoot ability as well as his pull-up off of the dribble. I think his finishing is above average. His ball handling and playmaking are below average (the lack of development of which may explain the difference between the expectations for him and his actual production). But, McLemore is like a JR Smith-type player, or a Nick Young. McLemore is going to be an ideal compliment to Mike Conley. We don't need, nor do we want, McLemore being on-ball, with the ball in his hands. We want McLemore stretching the defense and occupying a defender's attention off-ball, floating around, cutting, curling, rolling, and popping open for threes. Mike and Marc will find him. McLemore will get a good amount of looks and will shoot a good percentage playing alongside Mike and Marc. There's really no doubt about that. One wonders, maybe, about his maturity and readiness, and whether he will be a good fit in the locker room, and whether he's ready to "grit and grind" and give it his all, but the basketball fit makes sense.

That said, having Parsons (if he's healthy) and McLemore starting on the wings could spell trouble against the better perimeter scorers. Fizz may have to work in some rotation that sees Selden out there more for the spot match-ups, as needed. Undoubtedly there will be a drop off in wing defense, just from the loss of Tony, but I actually do wonder how dramatic it is actually going to be, or whether it will be less of a dropoff than people think. Tony hasn't been at peak Tony and it's not like Vince Carter was a crack defender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grizz&Grind    0

Brooks has a high basketball IQ and appears to be a hard worker. He can still improve.

One look at the back end of a lot of NBA rosters and he's as good as bench guys throughout the league.

Not comparing him to Klay Thompson at all - just observing that KT isn't exactly a high flyer or top shelf athlete yet he's a starter and major contributor on a team that's made the Finals three years in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fanboyslim    0

The thing I like about Brooks is he has a very quick release when he shoots, which compensates somewhat for his lack of athleticism. I'm more concerned about his performance on the defensive side, but again, he's probably only going to see the floor in small ball situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grizz&Grind said:

Brooks has a high basketball IQ and appears to be a hard worker. He can still improve.

One look at the back end of a lot of NBA rosters and he's as good as bench guys throughout the league.

Not comparing him to Klay Thompson at all - just observing that KT isn't exactly a high flyer or top shelf athlete yet he's a starter and major contributor on a team that's made the Finals three years in a row.

Exactly.   I believe the athleticism has been severely overstated anyway.   Training staff can help him find a good playing weight that can enhance the athleticism he has.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
8 minutes ago, Grizz&Grind said:

Brooks has a high basketball IQ and appears to be a hard worker. He can still improve.

One look at the back end of a lot of NBA rosters and he's as good as bench guys throughout the league.

Not comparing him to Klay Thompson at all - just observing that KT isn't exactly a high flyer or top shelf athlete yet he's a starter and major contributor on a team that's made the Finals three years in a row.

If Brooks can prove he can play defense at this level then he'll have no problem having a long career possibly even becoming a starter. It all depends on how good a defender he can become. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The REF    0
On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:56 PM, Dark-Child said:

He is easily, right now the best pick in the last three years. 

 

He will be an ALL*STAR player and make the ALL*STAR team in 4 or less years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLUEandGOLD    0
On 7/25/2017 at 9:26 AM, grizzgolf said:

Remember when this team was built on defense 

Yes! And it was TEAM defense. I agree that TA is/was an elite 1 on 1 defender but we had a cohesive defense that was solid. We can have that again without replacing TA with a comparable, elite, 1 on 1 defender. When TA gambled he could be a hero or a zero for our overall defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now