[SI] Landry making the most of his minutes

Admit it, this is the only reason why you posted the article.

 

Wow, I love this part. Still growing, learning, figuring out how to become one of the "old guys" ... asking questions, watching film ... focusing on defense and rebounding.

 

haha... Another great article nonetheless :grin:

 

I'm most impressed with where he ranks in 4th quarter scoring.

The names on the list ahead of him are superstars, except maybe Terry. I didn't know Landry was in that class.

Great article, thanks for posting.

 

I still can't believe some want to trade this guy. He knows how to score, plain and simple. And he isn't content. HE KEEPS GETTING BETTER!!!!

 

While nothing is impossible, I am guessing that Morey will be EXTREMELY picky if offered a supposed "upgrade" at the 4 (or frankly, at any of the roster spots, but particularly at the 4). The bottom line is, this team is on a 50+ win pace and I don't think it's a fluke given that it's 28 games into the season already and they've played a very tough schedule.

This is not just the Orlando Magic that won Doc Rivers Coach of the Year. These are not just a bunch of "overachieving," "scrappy," no-talent guys (these description would better fit the 05/06 Rockets). Playing hard may or may not be a skill, but it's hard to argue that offensive rebounding is not a skill, that being able to score at an absolutely ELITE rate while getting a ton of touches (.64 TS% on something like a 24% Usage) is not a skill, or that Brooks' mind-blowing quickiness or Lowry's ability to push the ball and draw fouls are not skills.

These are not just some "pieces" but rather guys playing real minutes on a very good team. You don' just sell them off for random crap as some suggest. Why make a trade unless you are actually getting value out of it?

 

nicely put. It's annoying for me to hear this team described as "scrappy" when I know they have so much talent.

And, I don't think anyone really wants to get rid of our players but if we are to make a trade for a star, it would likely involve Landry as he has the highest perceived value and potential. Although, he is progressing at such a rapid rate it would have to be a trade for a great talent, not a star by name.

 

-- Houston's Morey, on the Rockets situation as trading season begins to heat up.

 

landry's improvement will make yao's return from injury easier than i would expect. yao can now simply ease in as we have another more than just pretty good low post player.

 

In the preseason I'd of gotten grilled for this, but I would rather keep Landry over Scola. I mean, I'd prefer to keep both, but if we end up trading one of them, I would prefer to keep Carl.

 

Clips have more talent, and are 0-2 v Rox. Thunder? Same. Talent has to 'play well with others' and RA gets an 'A' in that department.

 

Does the Developement of Landy allow Yao to move up to the high Post?
no BANG as much. work with his smooth passing more?

Rocket River

 

I don't think the Clips or Thunder have more talent. Bigger names, perhaps, higher draft picks, but more talent?

Shouldn't talent have prevented Landry and Scola to have combined for 46 points on 23 FG attempt's and 17 FT attempts? Shouldn't talent have made these important "clutch" shots instead of getting them swatted?

What is talent? The ability to score and prevent scoring? Neither the Clips nor the Thunder have proven they can do it better than the Rockets, either head to head, or against NBA teams in general.

Are we talking talent in terms of future "potential"? Are the Rockets really older and tapped out on potential? Honestly, on a year to year basis, the Rockets guys have really improved as much from last year as the other team's have. Landry's taken a huge leap, Ariza is proving himself as a 35+ mpg guy for the first time, Brooks is a full time starter for the first time, Lowry is in his first full year with a consistent role on a winning team. Chuck Hayes is returning to full-timer minutes after seeing spot-duty in the past season. Even 30-year-old Scola has increased his production. And then there are Budinger and Taylor (who kinda looked good last night, but it's only a few minutes).

 

Its nice to see increased media coverage this year .. were really spinin' some heads out there getting recognition we certainly deserve

 

nice points,I agree with the talent part,in my eyes I see great talent in this team.landry ,lowry and budinger,lower pick ranking doesn't mean anything for these guys,stupid picking ranking is just based on some physical statistics,the IQ for basketball can never be tested by their stupid rules.

 

When I hear the words "scrappy" or "playing hard is a skill too" from commentators and other NBA coaches, I almost feel insulted for our team. I take that more as a left handed compliment.

Look, IMO we have superb role players in our bench. They are solid gold.

However, our starting lineup is flawed. Seriously flawed. We need a shot blocking, rebound center ASAP. We can win against 95% of teams in the league, but our team is exposed when we play teams with terrific length like Orlando, Celts, and especially the Lakers with Gazol and Bynum.

If a dumb poster like myself can see this, I am sure our super GM is aware of this as well. IMO, he is trying to address the needs trough trade. It is going to be Tmac, and one of our talented young players to get it done. This must be done or we will get killed come playoff time.

 

Carl: Interesting existential discussion.

I think the nature of the debate just boils down to semantic discretion. Rather than an absolute truth pertaining to the Rockets themselves, any individual's stance will merely be dependent upon their definition of the word 'talent.'

It seems that to you, 'talent' is defined and quantified by that which makes a player good, regardless of what it is, you seem to consider the term inclusive of any factor which may contribute to 'being good.' In this definition, effort and IQ are considered 'talent.'

To me, 'talent' is constituted simply by natural, intrinsic skill. You don't have to 'do' anything to affect your level - it's a part of you. So I think to that end, Chuck Hayes has to play hard to be considered talented (if allowing your definition), whereas there's nothing you can take away from Jeff Green that isn't a part of him that would change our perception of his talent.

So while I think that the Rockets are clearly better, they're not more talented than the Thunder because a lot of what is going into your perception is what the Rockets are doing (ie: playing hard, playing smart, being gritty.) I think talent stands alone.

Ultimately, it's a meaningless discussion with no right answer. Interesting nonetheless.

 

Is Jeff Green capable of playing like Chuck Hayes, though? Carl Landry (a guy with a lot of "natural intrinsic ability" in the offensive sight of things) has been watching Chuck Hayes and Chuck Hayes DVDs handed to him by the team for the last few years, and he never managed to play like Chuck Hayes. He doesn't have the natural instrinsic ability-- probably the ability to read and react in split seconds on defense, more than anything else-- to do what Chuck Hayes does.

"Basketball IQ," like regular IQ, I think may very well have an intrinsic component that you really would not be able to improve by "working on it," particularly as an adult.

As for Chuck having to play hard to be considered talented. So does Jeff Green, really. The guy seems to play very hard already-- and frankly, so do most NBA players. Having seen him a few games this season, I don't get the feeling that he's only giving 85 or 90% on the court. I think guys in the NBA (and there are only a few hundred of them in the whole world) have pretty much all worked hard to get there-- and would have to work hard to stay there (except when someone gets happy with a guaranteed contract and get lazy). Maybe Hayes' 100% looks harder than Green's 100%, but they are both 100%. (Remember when we had that Stromile Swift guy on this team? Did he really fluctuate between, say, 50% and 100%... did he have peaks and valleys more so that Chuck Hayes? My memory is a bit fuzzy, but it seems to me Stro is basically the same guy in each game... sometime he got more stats than others, but same guy.)

I don't think Hayes lacks physical talent, either. Physically, while Jeff Green's length and atheleticism are nice intrinsic abilities to have. Isn't Chuck Hayes's thick legs and ass (pause), his strength coupled with horizontal movement (pause) also natural instrinsic abilities that Jeff Green probably will never have?