Yao & Scola? More like Yao & T-Mac running the offense. I don't see a first year player from Europe running the offense no matter how polished he may be. The two best players will have the ball in their hands the most and that is certainly Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady.
Someone on this board started the rumor he was released but hasn't been. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/10346408
It's like you think repeating those two sentences two times each is supposed to strengthen your argument or something haha. Hmmm... maybe it was just me, but weren't point guards (and other positions) required to hit open 3's under JVG's offense also? In fact, name me an offensive scheme that doesn't involve three point shooting from guards. It's like you think Yao is permanently going to be stationed in the high post. He's going to be there sometimes, but his main role is still going to be posting up on the low block and scoring. If Adelman tries to transform him into Miller or Webber, he's making a HUGE mistake. We'd go from not utilizing Yao's passing ability enough to not utilizing his dominant scoring ability enough. I was very encouraged to see Scola pass well in the FIBA games. I'd like to see him run the high post more than Yao, so Yao can be on the low block rebounding and scoring where he's much more comfortable. Anyway, the PG and T-Mac will still be "running the offense". Just because Adelman said he wants to make it easier for T-Mac and wants him to finish plays, doesn't mean we're going to completely neglect his amazing play-making abilities.
Did you know that Adelman had Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson share PG duties in Sacramento? Did you know they were quite good? Did you know neither of them is a "true" PG? Did you know that SF and MJ as a duo are very similar to Bibby and Jackson? Do you know that SF and MJ are NOT the same player? (That was the silliest part of your post). Did you know that Adelman's pass happy motion offense requires several passers on the floor at one time and focuses less on a "pure" PG distributing the ball? Did you know Adelman's offense needs a PG that can receive the ball and score which is what SF and MJ both do much better than Rafer? Suggestion: Learn at least a little bit about something before posting on it. Regarding SF and MJ being the same player: MJ is a tenacious defender who is very quick and is a good 3 pointer shooter. Unlike Rafer, he can finish at the rim when it's there but he doesn't make a living doing so. SF doesn't like to play D and is barely average from long range. He plays a physical brand of PG and is at his best when slashing to the basket and taking mid-range jumpers. With Adelman as coach, it is very obvious Rafer will be on the low end of the PG totem pole if he remains on the team.
Memo to A_3PO: rhetorical questions are only useful when you're actually trying to make a point. Why are you comparing Bibby and Jackson to SF and James when they're completely different players? Whether you like it or not, SF and James are the same players in terms of scoring mentality. Both are shoot-first guards. They might score in different ways, but that wasn't what I was talking about. And why did you randomly start talking about defense? We've clearly been talking about offense and versatility. But while we're at it, you might be overrating James' "tenacious" defense just a little bit. Man, if only we had that tenacious defender to guard Jason Terry in the Mavs playoffs series! If James is that good defensively, AND Morey still called Rafer the best defensive guard on the team, how good is Rafer's defense then? As for needing passers in Adelman's offense, lets see... we have whoever is playing in the high post (whether it's Yao or Scola), then we have T-Mac of course, and we have the true point guard. Of the main players that will be in our rotation, only Hayes, Head, and Snyder aren't good passers. There will be plenty of passers on the court. But to say that it would be useless to have a PG distributor is a little on the WTF? side. I'm wondering why people seem to want our offense to be EXACTLY like the Kings' offense. If Rafer was starting hypothetically, the scoring from that position would be down obviously. So what if he can't score like Bibby/Jackson? This is a different team. What do the Rockets have that the Kings never had? A dominating center. James and Francis won't be scoring nearly as much as you think. T-Mac, Yao, and Bonzi will probably be our top three scorers. Then comes the SF/James guard combo and Scola. Do we really need to have all those scorers on the court at the same time? Having four guys on the court that can score would work great for a distributor like Rafer. And just because I want Rafer to start doesn't mean I want him playing 40+ minutes a game. About 20-30 would be fine, with Francis and James playing SG in addition to PG when Bonzi's on the bench. Btw, my opinion of Alston starting is related to who starts between Battier and Bonzi. If Battier is starting, then you'd want more scoring from the guard play so then I'd start Francis/James. If Bonzi is starting (which I want), then starting Rafer would make more sense to me.
Memo to IMissJVG: Bibby and Jackson were scoring PGs just like SF and MJ. I never said the Rockets would be "exactly" like the Kings but since Adelman coached there 8 seasons, that leaves us a very good blueprint. That blueprint gives no indication of needing the "true" PG you say we need. So, OK, let's stay 100% on your point and forget defense and focus on scoring mentality. SF+MJ is very close to Bibby+Jackson. So much for a "true" PG. Speaking of staying on point, where did I say it would be "useless" to have a PG distributor? Both MJ and SF pass and distribute because that comes with playing PG on any team. What I said was Adelman's teams emphasize scoring at the PG position instead of just passing. Lastly, nobody claimed you wanted Rafer to play 40 minutes/game. That's a straw man. It was ludicrous enough for you to say he should be the starter. JVG is gone. Rafer's skillset doesn't fit the new sheriff. For that matter, even if JVG were still the coach Rafer wouldn't return as starter because Rafer's abilities have been proven substandard for a starting NBA PG.
Why? Because he can't shoot? Please. Once again, if you have FOUR guys on the floor that can score, there's nothing wrong with starting a traditional PG that isn't a good scorer. I've yet to hear you respond to that.
I love Snyder, think he is vastly underrated, and is perfect for Adelman's system, but with the amount of talent we have at the swing position, the only way I say him seeing time is-
In theory, fine. But the problem is instead of theories we are talking a real situation: The 2007/08 Houston Rockets. Rafer was bad last season. Adelman is a coach who's offense doesn't fit Rafer's skills. We have three new PGs on this team, two of which are veteran players who's skills fit what Adelman likes in a PG. If that doesn't tell you Rafer's will be stuck behind MJ & SF if they can't trade him then you are unreasonable. The likelihood that Rafer is the starting for game 1 is zero. Unreasonable people are entitled to be wrong, which is the case here with you. Some people believe the Earth is flat.
On the original topic, I am not a fan of this signing. I would much rather we go to war with... Yao/Mutumbo/Butler Scola/Hayes/Novak Battier/Wells McGrady/Head/Snyder Francis/James/Brooks And keep Rafer until we can move him for something. There are alot of teams out there who are in dire need of a pg (like Cleveland), but a move won't be made until our final 15 is decided on, because teams would much rather we cut him outright and not have to deal with his contract. The first and second stringers I just mentioned are all locks to make the team, as is Brooks. Snyder SHOULD be a lock with his skill set. I also like Butler as center insurance at the 5. Being as young as he is, he also has a nice opportunity to soak up some knowledge from the two all-time great centers in front of him. That leaves Novak or Landry as lucky #15, and I just feel like you can never have too many shooters. Whichever one makes the team won't play anyway, but I feel like Novak can at least bring something to the table. Landry is a taller Hayes (which isn't a bad thing), but we have a Hayes who plays much taller than his 6'6" stature anyways. I feel that Novak would be much more effective under Adelman than he was under JVG and I'd like to see him get a chance. The only way I like this move is if we know Rafer won't be there on opening night.
Unreasonable because you don't agree with me? Enough with your condescending BS. You know very well that we acquired guards because of DEPTH. Not necessarily because we want Rafer off the team and his role replaced. We acquired players so he doesn't have to play 40+ minutes ever again. Now when he has a bad day, we have someone to help him out. I really don't care if Rafer starts or not. He's going to get his share of time whether you like it or not. I personally wanted Rafer to start because I wanted Bonzi to start. If Battier is starting then Francis/James is starting for sure.
Sorry for the excessive sarcasm. Sincerely. When SF surprisingly came aboard and created the logjam, that pushed Rafer off the plank. It's not a matter of helping him out and reducing his minutes. Rafer went from possibly having a role here to trade bait. You better believe I won't like it if he gets real playing time, but I'm not worried about it at all. Won't happen. He will neither be the starter nor the backup PG. OK, back to Landry, who will get more playing time than Rafer if he make the team.
No one has answered this question yet. Does anyone saying Rafer will be kept because he's a "pass first point guard" REALLY think he will be OK with riding the bench all year after he AVERAGED 38 minutes per game over the last two years? Has this even been factored in to the "Rafer will stay" arguments? Why in the world would he even want to stay with the team?
First of all we cannot be sure he will come off the bench. Maybe he'll find his best shape and he will be unstopable? But if not he probably will sit on the bench and will fight with Mike James and Aaron Brooks (Steve probably will be the startin' PG). Of course he can go but I'm not sure if somebody wants him.
Look man... I lived in Sacramento when the Kings were good under Adelman. I've probably seen more Kings games than anyone here. First of all, if you don't think both Bibby and Bobby Jackson had scoring mentalities, then you're quite wrong. Secondly, Adelman teams play point guard by committee. If the guy's only real upside is being a distributor, then his skills are being wasted on an Adelman team. If we have a choice between a guy whose passing is excellent and shooting is meh, and a guy whose passing is decent and shooting is good, you take the latter every single time. I would think Rafer would be moved if we can get anything of value in return.
The Landry signing thread tuned into a why Rafer should/shouldn't play thread. Here is the main damning fact about Rafer... we have picked up 3 people that play his position this off season. You blew this off earlier by saying that this was for depth. Picking up one or even two players at your position might be considered depth, especially if they are backup type players. We picked up three PG's and they all have one thing in common, THEY DON'T PLAY ANYTHING LIKE RAFER. Two of them are proven starters and the other is our #1 draft pick. I would say this might lead you to believe that the Rockets are going a different direction at PG. Ignore the facts if you want. Since we are on the topic of PG though I have a theory about why we still have 5 and haven't traded any. Rick wants to see them play in his offense, even JL3 and Rafer. Like him or not JL3 is more of a scoring PG like the 3 we picked up. Anyway, we still have all of them because Rick said "you can trade Rafer or JL3 but don't just get rid of them cause I'd still like to see what they can do".
Sorry IMissJVG, but I just don't think Rafer will see the light of day as far as minutes go on this team. There is far and away to much talent ahead of him in Brooks, Francis and James who will probably help close out games for the rockets. It looks like the cream will rise to the top in this case. Rafer is a good little ball handler and distributor, but inept on the offensive end ie. inability to finish and no mid-range game at all. Morey made a big Point Guard statement drafting Brooks at #26 even after they had aquired James a few weeks before the draft.
I think you're completely wrong. I think that even though Landry didn't score a lot in SL, he was more impressive than Novak who had one good shooting game...and when you're considered a good shooter, then that's not very good. And Landry is not a taller version of Hayes. Sure he is taller, but he's also better than Hayes in ever other aspect of the game. The only thing Hayes has on Landry right now is defense and rebounding and it's not by a very large margin.
