Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Rockets declined Chandler Parsons 4th-year option


Jakob

Recommended Posts

MKG is not our defensive catalyst. That point is so overstated around here. We are definitely better with him on the floor, but he doesn't make such a difference that he can't be started over.

Without MKG on the floor, 103PPP near bottom in the NBA. With MKG on the floor that number went down to 98, which is a top 5 defense.

Before injury, his defense was even better, with him on the floor 93 PPP.

So yes, his defense was good enough he wouldn't be started over unless the other player was a high level defensive player as well. Because with out him, that was seriously one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA and with him it was a top line unit.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think regardless of who we land in FA, MKG will start. Many people look at positions too much when trying to figure out lineups. MKG can guard 1-3's and he would start along side of Parsons, Hayward or Melo(pipe dream) and he would cover the other teams most talented SG or SF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without MKG on the floor, 103PPP near bottom in the NBA. With MKG on the floor that number went down to 98, which is a top 5 defense.

Before injury, his defense was even better, with him on the floor 93 PPP.

So yes, his defense was good enough he wouldn't be started over unless the other player was a high level defensive player as well. Because with out him, that was seriously one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA and with him it was a top line unit.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

That point really is overrated. There are a lot more factors that go into why we gave up that many points in that stretch. MKG only averaged 24 minutes per game. If he really made our team as much better as some people think, he would've played Kemba/Al minutes.

 

(I know I need to put this aside because people will overreact to my statement. I really like MKG, I don't want to start another player over him because it would lower his confidence even more, and if he developed a decent 20 footer and drove more he would be a very good player.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think regardless of who we land in FA, MKG will start. Many people look at positions too much when trying to figure out lineups. MKG can guard 1-3's and he would start along side of Parsons, Hayward or Melo(pipe dream) and he would cover the other teams most talented SG or SF.

 

The only way he'd start alongside Parsons would be if Parsons was at the 4, which means no McRoberts or even less Zeller. No way MKG is being put at the 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without MKG on the floor, 103PPP near bottom in the NBA. With MKG on the floor that number went down to 98, which is a top 5 defense.

Before injury, his defense was even better, with him on the floor 93 PPP.

So yes, his defense was good enough he wouldn't be started over unless the other player was a high level defensive player as well. Because with out him, that was seriously one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA and with him it was a top line unit.

Sent from my iPad using CarolinaHuddle

Get him Car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That point really is overrated. There are a lot more factors that go into why we gave up that many points in that stretch. MKG only averaged 24 minutes per game. If he really made our team as much better as some people think, he would've played Kemba/Al minutes.

(I know I need to put this aside because people will overreact to my statement. I really like MKG, I don't want to start another player over him because it would lower his confidence even more, and if he developed a decent 20 footer and drove more he would be a very good player.)

Show the stats of the players he guarded per that 25 minutes. Also stopping other star scores for 25min of a game can win effect the whole game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh if it came down to signing parsons for 12-15 million or Stephenson 8-12 million I'm taking Stephenson. Ive wanted him all along. Everybody I talk to dosent want him tho. Personal I don't think he's that crazy. Him and Kemba played together in NYC. And big al is a leader and very no nonsense kinda guy. I think he comes in and keeps his nose clean.

I think the problem in Indiana was he wanted to show off his talents and show he was a budding star, which I agree with. I think PG is a little overated and lance wanted to be noticed while not being the key guy.

In charlotte he has the chance to be the 2nd guy and maybe the number one option going forward. He's got the talent and the skills. Just needs a chance. If we don't sign him and he takes off like James harden did I will be very disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally Hayward is my first choice followed very closely by Stephenson. Either one massively upgrades our weakest position.

I tend to agree with this. But with Phoenix basically coming out and saying they will do anything they can to get Hayward I see getting him as a longshot. The suns are giving him the max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with this. But with Phoenix basically coming out and saying they will do anything they can to get Hayward I see getting him as a longshot. The suns are giving him the max.

I haven't seen that, but if that's the case best of luck to them. If that's true they have a log jam at the 3 though. PJ Tucker, Gerald Green, TJ Warren, and Gordon Hayward? No way they hang on to all of them, I think either Green or Tucker is out of there regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...