What does ZRB, DearRock and CBS Sportsline have in common?

All the Rockets have offered him is 2 years, 8.2 million. They can afford more than that. They are making a BIG, BIG mistake.

------------------
Protrolls.com!

Keep the ???? alive!

The ZRBucks!

 

I can't see how anyone would say that Taylor is better defensively than KT.

Granted, KT is no first team all-defensive forward, but he gives opposing PF's more trouble than Mo Taylor.

And KT gets more REB than Taylor despite playing about 6 MIN less in a game. Defensive rebounding is a big part of defense.

------------------
Get Cato out of there...

 

No. He leans on his man too much, and the offensive player can get by him relatively easy with a simple spin move.

I have to disagree here, about Mo leaning on offensive players. I consider position defense and lateral movement different things. Mo gets burned on spin moves more than Kenny because he doesn't have quite the footwork of Kenny when trying to react. However, post offense is more than just spin moves. Mo is better at holding his ground in the post, getting a hand in the face of shooters, and as the game wears on he can take a lot more banging than KT can.

Kenny Thomas: 6'8, 260 lbs
Mo Taylor: 6'9, 260 lbs

That is a tremendous overstatement on Kenny Thomas, and possibly an understatement on Mo Taylor. If you see the two next to each other on the court, Mo is obviously the bigger player. I'd bet Kenny is closer to 6'7, and Mo closer to 6'10.

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

 

And KT gets more REB than Taylor despite playing about 6 MIN less in a game. Defensive rebounding is a big part of defense.

Not really. Rebounding and defense are two different things. Just because you aren't as good of a rebounder as someone else doesn't mean you can't guard their man as good or better. If I were up 1 against San Antonio with 12 seconds left, and the whole world knew they would go to Duncan, I would have no hesitation whatsoever to put Mo on him and not KT.

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

 

Since the search function is disabled, I will have to quote grummett from memory:


Only in your world Cat.


Mango



------------------
Get it right or just don't do it!
Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated.
Start more Webber threads!

 

Mango,

Do you remember what idea that quote was used in context with? Grummett responded to my statement of good shooters do not always have high percentages. I went on to prove that shooters such as Keith Van Horn, Matt Bullard, Eric Piatkowski, Michael Dickerson, and Mike Miller all shot 43.5% or below from the field.

Do you think that Matt Bullard is a good shooter? If so, you are using a quote you disagreed with to try and prove your point. Makes sense to me.

P.S.-- Instead of bringing up previous posts in which I wasn't in favor of Mo Taylor, why don't you actually take the time to participate in the discussion yourself? I didn't like Mo Taylor when I saw his stats from the Clippers. I like him now. So? I changed my mind. I didn't know that was illegal. If you disagree with my takes on Mo and the Rockets, why don't you try and discuss what you think and why you think I'm wrong instead of bringing up year old quotes that serve no purpose?

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

[This message has been edited by The Cat (edited July 23, 2001).]

 

I like Mo Taylor, but he's not better than KT on the defensive side. I don't think KT should start ahead of Mo though because of his almost automatic shot. KT's a better defender though, if you think Mo's better, then I've got 2 words for you...

Ruben Patterson

------------------
So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking,
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

 

BGM,

I don't think you've watched Ruben Patterson play very much. Ruben is an exceptionally strong player, and even though he is 6'5, his power when he backs people down in the post is undeniable and almost unguardable. He would've scored on that play even if Tim Duncan were guarding him.

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

 

Only you would. I'll name some good post position defenders, and you tell me if you can see a striking similarity found in all of them. Ruben Patterson, Kobe Bryant, Hakeem in his prime, and even our own Steve Francis.

Now, give me a list of good post position defenders who lack lateral quickness.

No, I've seen them both up close, and Thomas is a legit 6'8. In fact, he's gone out of his way to make it clear to the press that he is the height they list him at.

I won't go into your claim that defense and rebound aren't associated with each other, but Kenny Thomas is a smarter defender, sees the flight of the ball, and uses his weight better than Taylor.

As far as your hypothetical situation goes, I would put Thomas on him, because by Duncan's own admission, "Kenny Thomas plays good defense on me", and "putting up a hand" will only do so much.



------------------

 

Now, give me a list of good post position defenders who lack lateral quickness.

I didn't say Mo lacked lateral quickness; my point was that he isn't as good as Kenny in that area. I was trying to acknowledge Kenny's great footwork, but that's not to say that Mo doesn't have decent lateral movement himself.

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

 

Sure, the thread was about shooters and you used D Curry as an example. You were admonished for using the stats of a declining player.

The grummett quote was used to express my sentiments about Taylor and your defense of his defense.

Give me the search function back and I will pull up some detailed threads I did on comparing Taylor to previous PF that have garnered Championship Rings.

Since the search function is unavailable, lets do it right here in this thread.

Paraphrasing my post from a few weeks back:


If we define the modern area of basketball from the entry of Bird-Magic to the present, name the starting PF with a Championship Ring that Mo's game most resembles.


I don't remember your response, what was it?

---------------------------------------------
From a thread I started maybe 6 months ago.


From a detailed analysis of Championship Teams over the past 20 plus years, the PF position has almost always been the supporting player as far as offense goes, while being a hard worker in the areas of rebounding and support defense. Championship teams usually had hard working role players such as Rambis, Thorpe, Grant, Horry etc. The only exceptions were Duncan and McHale.


Sir, Mo is neither Duncan or McHale.

You keep postulating that Mo is the solution at PF and you like what you see from him. Well I have seen and examined the history of NBA Champions and Mo does not fit. I have supported my feelings about Mo with quality data. To argue otherwise, is to argue against historical precedent.


Mango




------------------
Get it right or just don't do it!
Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated.
Start more Webber threads!

 

I don't know about that Mango, before Robert Horry, could you name a PF similar to him during a title run!? There is a first time for everything. Definitely Mo was better then the aging AC Green that the Lakers trotted out there during their 2000 title run.

------------------
"Instruments are like women: After a while, you want to make love to another."

- Nicolas Godin of the musical duo Air

[This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited July 23, 2001).]

 

Mango,

My argument for Mo Taylor, and Marc Jackson, is in much the same angle. I believe certain elements make up a championship team. Scoring, rebounding, defending, shotblocking, etc. However, I do not think we should look at history and make out clearly defined roles for each position based on what champions of the past have done.

An argument against Marc Jackson is that most of the NBA teams who got deep in the playoffs the last few years have had a shotblocking center. I happen to think it is the element of shotblocking that is important, and we have that in Eddie Griffin. Is Griffin a center? No. So he doesn't fit the historical precedent of a center that can block shots. But what teams have had a forward with the shotblocking capabilities of Eddie Griffin and lost? He is a new breed, so history shouldn't be relevant.

I feel the same way in many aspects with Mo Taylor. There haven't been many power forwards like Mo Taylor, who can handle the ball like a guard, play from the inside and out, shoot it out to 20 feet, etc. What Mo brings us the most, imho, is a big man who can create from the inside and out, and set up other teammates by drawing double teams. Most championship teams have had a big man who can create their own shot from the post or outside, with the exception of teams like the Bulls who had MJ.

I guess I look at these historical precedents differently than you do. Imho, they need to be valued, but not as structured as you see it. Championship teams need scoring, defense, rebounding, shotblocking, guards who can create from the outside, big men who can create their own shot and find open teammates, hustlers, passers, etc. The list goes on. Personally, I feel that we do need to have all of those elements to be a championship contender. But I don't think it has to be as structured as you seem to believe. Mo Taylor fits multiple needs, and while he may not fit the description of a prototypical power forward, does Eddie Griffin fit the description of a prototypical small forward? Mo possesses many elements of protoptypical small forwards at the power forward spots. Eddie Griffin possesses many elements of prototypical power forwards at the small forward spot. To me, it doesn't matter so much what position the elements come from as long as they are there.

------------------
Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!

The Mo Taylor Fan Site

 

Usually the new champion sets the trend, and when they are dethroned a new trend rises. The Celtics were the slow, half-court team vs the Showtime Lakers. After that, the Detroit Pistons won back-to-back titles and they played a style nobody had ever seen, rough and tumble basketball, and it worked, even though there was never any historical proof that said it SHOULD work! The Rockets of the mid-90s, the inside-out perimeter oriented team was the first to really win back-to-back titles. The Rockets won a title with Otis Thorpe at Power Forward, they also won with Chucky Brown and Robert Horry at Power Forward. Nothing stay consistent in basketball. People say you need a good big man to make a run to the playoffs, then along comes Milwaukee rolling to the ECF with Scott Williams and Ervin Johnson. People say you need a shot-blocker to win a championship, but last year the team who didn't have a dominant shot-blocker that made it to the WCF were the Portland Trailblazers. Who knows? Maybe the fact that Mo is an unique PF could change the rules again!

------------------
"Instruments are like women: After a while, you want to make love to another."

- Nicolas Godin of the musical duo Air


[This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited July 23, 2001).]

 

Paying Olajuwon more means that we might lose one of our free agents. Since the Rockets want to keep all their free agents, they don't want to offer more.

It is this fact that you, Dream and CBS.Dumbasses.com can't seem to understand.

What's next, a David Aldridge article?

------------------
It was the time of the preacher, in the year of '01
Now the preachin' is over, and the lessons begun . . .

 

Mo Taylor played in 69 games which is not close to 82. *cough* *cough*


------------------
First the Sopranos and now Eddie Griffin... thank you New Jersey!

 

Could someone please bronze this quote and save it for me. LOL

------------------
First the Sopranos and now Eddie Griffin... thank you New Jersey!

 

Assuming that there is 15 million of cap space, they could give Hakeem 6, Mo 5.5, and Shandon 3.5, while giving Moochie the exception, and Bullard the minimum. Why can they not do this?

------------------
Protrolls.com!

Keep the ???? alive!

The ZRBucks!

[This message has been edited by ZRB (edited July 23, 2001).]

 

Once we go under the cap, the exception dissappears.

And Shandon will probably cost at least the early-bird exception.

------------------
It was the time of the preacher, in the year of '01
Now the preachin' is over, and the lessons begun . . .

[This message has been edited by Tolpatcsh Verkinder (edited July 23, 2001).]