Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Who would you rather keep? : Wright or Randolph

Who would you rather keep? : Wright or Randolph

Let's steer away from past 3 dissapointing losses and gauge some thoughts for a second but not before I just say that I am absolutely disgusted with what I saw last night against the Washington Wizards (a 1-10 team with an interim coach). Sloppy play, no energy, turnovers! We looked like a circus out there while Washington, an injury ridden team who just fired their head coach and is in last place in the East, looked unstoppable! I know Andray Blatche...but who the hell is Andray Blatche, He torched us! not to mention Butler, Jamison, Javale McGee, and even Dee Brown had a decent game. Oh well, it's all behind me for now. We just gotta keep getting better and limiting our mistakes.

Aside from all that, just for fun, if it came down to it, who would you rather have on our team. Theoretically speaking, if we had to part with either Brandan Wright or Anthony Randolph based on what you have seen from each of them during this young season, who would you favor? Although both of them have many of the same qualities like length, energy, youth, and the ability to block shots (maybe Randolph is better at this than Wright), they do have many differences as well. Weigh all the pros and cons for each player and make a decision.

   Even with all the similarities that they share, I can see a lot of differences as well. For instance, I can see that Randolph, even though he always looks sad, is tougher than Brandan Wright and I can see that Brandan Wright can get off way better shots than Anthony Randolph. I know he's young and is going to make mistakes but for God's sake, he doesn't have to shoot the ball every time he touches it! Yes, he's drilled a few shots from the outside but not enough to make opponents respect that shot. They're leaving him open for a reason. I'd like to see him use his ability to handle the ball more and drive to the rim explosively. I can see in the future that A. Randolph is going to be a player who plays with a lot of heart and a lot of passion.

Brandan Wright, on the other hand, goes about his business in quieter fashion. He plucks boards out of the sky for easy put backs but also looks like he always takes tougher shots than they need to be. At least he's working in the right direction. He's working on his hook shot and low post game and I love how he utilizes his length to get shots off where no one can reach it (K.G. used to and still does it all the time). B. Wright is no K.G. (not to say that he can't be similar in the future) but when I first saw him, I predicted him to be more of a Chris Bosh.

In my eyes, I think Anthony Randolph plays tougher than Brandan Wright. He'll come at you defensively and go after each shot like there's no tomorrow and Wright kind of gets deflection blocks with his "go go gadget arms". Right now, Wright has the advantage because he has more experience than Anthony Randolph but there is no denying the tremendous amount of upside that A.R. possesses.

Since the two are alike in many aspects, I wanted to see what everyone else thought. I think both of these guys are going to be rising stars in the NBA for the years to come, they just need the coaches to teach them rather than bark orders at them since they are so young and inexperienced. Don Nelson is going to have to adjust his style of coaching a lot and help them learn how to play this game the right way.  The future is very bright for both of these young, lanky forwards and hopefully, these dudes could just fill out a little more in strength and build and reach their full potential. But IF you had to choose one....which one would it be?

Poll
Who would you rather keep? Brandan "Inspector Gadget" Wright or Anthony "Sad Face" Randolph?
B. Wright Fa Sho!
141 votes
Anthony Randolph Fa Sheezy!
327 votes
I can't choose between the two..they're both gonna be raw!
204 votes

672 votes | Poll has closed

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

6 recs  |  Comment 137 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I voted Randolph

but I’d like to keep both. Get those boys in the weight room the next 2 offseasons and let em FSU down low for a couple years.

by Gob on Nov 26, 2008 10:38 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Exactly what I’m thinking. Randolph will be great for off the bench energy. Wright needs to gain some strength/weight and be put into the starting lineup. They need to start running lob plays for him, for reals. I am getting sick of just watching him stand around picking his nose on offense, praying for a rebound to come his way.

Develop Wright.

by spoon671 on Dec 5, 2008 11:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

One of these players shows occasional flashes that make you think he might possibly be really good someday, if things work out.

The other is just really good.

This is a no-brainer if there ever was one. Wright, Wright, Wright, Wright, Wright.

by onlxn on Nov 26, 2008 10:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Randolph

Kid is going to be a force. Wright is good too, but Randolph’s potential is unreal.

by J Canseco on Nov 26, 2008 10:44 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Generally, people talk of ‘potential’ when someone’s game is lacking. Potential seems to be far more common than realizing the potential.

by jae on Nov 26, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

thanks

What is your point? Kid is a 19 year old rookie with buckets of talent and an apparently strong competitive drive. If you think I should have chosen another word, well, I don’t really care.

by J Canseco on Nov 26, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you think I should have chosen another word?

   maybe hype?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 26, 2008 11:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dang, you guys really showed me.

by J Canseco on Nov 26, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you guys really showed me.

    40 home runs, 40 stolen bases, unanimous MVP?? You get the last laugh .

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 26, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hm. i think his point is

that, yes, AR has potential out the wazoo, but few players ever reach this “potential” which is kind of a vague term of what he might be able to do in the future.

some guys never become better shooters no matter how nice their form is or how much they work at it (Jason Kidd, Shaq, Baron, etc). some guys are the same player they were at 19 as they are at 25 (Darius Miles, Joe Smith, Dampier, etc).

basically AR is what draft pundits thought he’d be. a boom or bust type player. but i’d take AR over Wright b/c the NBA is a superstars league.

by the evil monkey on Nov 26, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

negative

That’s why Iverson can’t win a championship, right?

by spoon671 on Dec 5, 2008 11:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i’d take AR over Wright b/c the NBA is a superstars league?

  Since when did boom or bust define superstar?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 6, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

WTF is up with all this negative "potential" talk about AR?

Look, I agree that our “now” is not in Randolph. And I agree that betting on him is betting on the come. But come on — you guys treat the “potential” comments around Randolph like he was a second coming of POB.

POB has “potential”, and shows flashes of skills. Randolph is friggin 19 and fills the stat sheet in limited minutes. Do you go to games? Have you really watched him play? We’re not talking about some prayer on a guy who is long and tall and might some day develop skills. We’re talking about a guy who has demonstrated passion and heart, who goes 100% when he’s on the floor, and who does something really impressive virtually every time he gets a chance to play. The guy doesn’t ooze “potential”, he oozes TALENT.

Compare him with someone like Kevin Durant. Sure, the kid got 20 PPG last year, but what else does he do? I’m sure if we let Randolph take 17+ shots in 34+ minutes per game he’d look pretty damned good too. And yeah, he makes mistakes. But mistakes are teachable. What he’s shown on the court is NOT TEACHABLE. And it’s not hypothetical. It’s HAPPENING, in a 19YO body, in limited minutes. Give him 2 or 3 years like Beans and Monta. No, please, give him 2 or 3 years — without trading him… I might keep my season tickets for that.

Compare what you see from Randolph now with what you saw from Andris or Monta or Amare their first year, and just stop and think for a minute. I’m not here to bet the farm on him, but give him some friggin credit. The dude is already legit! He’s can’t do anything but get better as he gets more minutes and the game slows down for him.

I’m not advocating that we be content with what we have now. I think our current situation sucks, and I fully blame management for f*cking our salary cap position on the heals of a fantastic opportunity to get it in line. Monta & Andris were good deals, Turiaf was smart, and KAz made sense… but after that…?

It’s amazing how fast a few bad decisions can completely pollute the water and cloud the future. Hopefully Crawford is tradeable. I’m not so sure if Mags is, unless we bundle in BWright. Which would be a damned shame, if we end up losing some of our legit young talent as we try to clean up the garbage our fantastic executive management team managed to accrue over the course of just a few months…

by b.radley on Nov 29, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph fills the stat sheet for sure, but a lot of the things he fills it with are bricks and turnovers.

Nobody’s saying the guy’s POB. Randolph is intriguing for sure. But there are big differences between him and a guy like Durant (who’s not all he’s hyped up to be his own self). Durant, even gunning mercilessly the way he did last year, shot far better than Randolph is shooting, and he turned it over far less often. Durant also led his college team to success, which Randolph was completely unable to do. Randolph has actually never led a team to success; his high school team couldn’t even make their playoffs.

The guy can already rebound and block shots quite well, so it’s not like he’s going to wash out of the league. Anthony Randolph will, at the very least, be a useful player in some way. But a big who shoots under 35% from the field… that’s pretty bad. He’s gotten a fair number of minutes at this point, and he’s still all over the place. Monta and Biedrins and Stoudemire weren’t like that when they came in… all of them were competent scorers from the get-go. Even a flameout like Darius Miles knew how to score from day one.

Nobody here’s rooting against him. I just think it’s far from a given that he’ll put it together. And I certainly don’t think he’s as good of a bet as Brandan Wright, who, like the aforementioned players, came in ready to contribute offensively. Randolph does a lot of weird, bad stuff on the basketball court. Maybe he’ll stop doing that, but you’d figure he would’ve already stopped it by the time he got to the NBA.

by onlxn on Nov 30, 2008 12:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Since the two are alike in many aspects,

  Like they both have two feet? They are totally different types of players, we need to keep both and give them time to figure out their games. Wright has it closer to happening but Rudolf might have a higher ceiling if he ever gets a coach who can pound some sense into his head.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 26, 2008 10:47 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

if he ever gets a coach who can pound some sense into his head.

That’s the problem, Nellie’s not the guy to do that.

One of Nellie’s strong points with his players is that he lets them do whatever they want. He’s gonna create plays to put them in a position where they’re comfortable (hence his preference to players who are good at something and not average on everything) but in the end, he’s still putting alot on the players shoulder.

I think it’s part of our ball movement and shot selection problem. It’s just based on my own observation but it seems like most of the time Nellie just wants his 4 other players to get to spots they’re comfortable in and trust Jackson/Watson or whoever the ballhandler is to try to create and maybe give them the ball.

But the problem is we don’t have that kind of player, maybe Crawford but it might be a stretch.

by lightz0ut on Nov 26, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hm. i'm still not sure how much a coach can really control a player's game.

i think it’s a natural thing about each player. i’ve played for a few coaches who emphasized different things and been in some different systems, but i still play the same way, just picked my spots differently.

i don’t know that Nellie wants this necessarily. even before Monta’s injury and the season started, i knew on offense they’d be running a lot of isolations b/c their 3 best offensive players/creators are all iso players (Monta, Jack, Maggette). didn’t account for Andris (but post ups are basically isos) or Crawford (but he’s another iso player)

we don’t have the type of passers to run a backdoor offense like Princeton. nor the post up player to run a low, pinch (in between – think triangle), or high post offense. like most NBA team’s we’re probably running some version of the motion offense in the half court. i only know Nellie used to run the 1-4 motion (like the Jazz) back when he was in Milwaukee. not sure what variations he’s been running since.

from the looks of it, i’d say we’re running some variant of the fastbreak offense of Auerbach fame (i think it emphasizes the 3, and to a lesser extent the 4, getting out and running) and a strongside motion offense w/ plenty of freedom in the half court .

by the evil monkey on Nov 26, 2008 2:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

They are totally different types of players

they’re not two totally different players buddy! yes, they’re different but they have a lot of the same features. you aint a know it all homie! stop bein all bitter and go against other people in all your posts..i read what you wrote up there to J canseco. do something with yourself square!

by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Nov 26, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

stop bein all bitter and go against other people in all your posts

    Sorry, I’m not really bitter, just realistic and having some fun. I like your post highlighting the youngsters but I don’t think we should consider just one of them since they have different style of play? We have Kurz and Bellinili to drop before Wright or Rudolf.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 26, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I’d keep them both. Wright is much more efficient but Randolph’s potential ceiling is much more higher. Having said that, they are seen as our future and should not be traded away, but only time will tell if they’re busts or not. Here’s to hoping that they are not and will be future all stars in this league! Cause they sure have shown glimpses of it.

WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...

by JustSomeName on Nov 26, 2008 10:59 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Both = Great Measurable (No pun intended)
Both = Great Runners
Both = Young
Both = High Potential and Ceilings
Both = Keep

Hasheem "The Dream" Thabeet or Brandon Jennings. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.

by ejdacanay on Nov 26, 2008 12:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

stuck with both

whether they will amount to much down the line is pure speculation, potential or not, but the likelihood is that we couldn’t afford to trade them – their contracts are simply too low to let go of now that we shelled out all the dough for Monta, Andris, Maggs, Jax, and now Crawford – it’ simply a matter of financial constraints – we’d need to package one with one of our big ticket boys to get much in return. Maybe that’s what’s in store in the future.

We are still stuck at the fork in the road between rebuilding and really pushing to make the playoffs; it just makes sense to groom Wright at the 4 and Randolph at the 3, not that a front-line with Dris is going to scare anyone, perhaps one or both become serviceable rotation guys. But we’ve added two expensive veterans at the SG/SF spots and extended a third in the past couple months – so the opportunity to be grooming KAz, AR, or BWright simply is not going to be there if Nelson plays his vets in a 4-guard alignments in an effort to squeeze into the 8th spot … yet if we fail to make the playoffs we’re still drafting in the mid-teens

by hardcore on Nov 26, 2008 12:13 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

CAN WE

keep both and get rid of MAGGETTE?!?!?

i groan every time he pulls up for a 3. Usually a fade away 3 at that.

He need to drive to the hoop 2 times for every one time he shoots a J.

Maggette is costing the team games and development of the younger players, too.

This season should be a throw away and Wright and Randolph should each be getting 20 to 25 min’s a game.

by joegiant on Nov 26, 2008 12:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

you musta liked tonight's game then

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

if i HAD to pick one

randolph obviously. a competitive spirit gets you further than talent. also he’s more talented lmao.

by HoLdEmUP on Nov 26, 2008 12:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

i said wright

mainly because Randolph always looks sad, and that’s kind of depressing to watch. He throws down a monster dunk or nasty block, but he looks like his puppy just died.

That said, they should both develop into good players, and in an ideal world, they will both be Warriors and FSU, as Gob so eloquently put it.

by exl on Nov 26, 2008 12:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

who cares what he looks like

he obviously is mature in that he doesn’t get too high or too low. that’s something you should look for, not discount.

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph

has a higher ceiling because we know he can handle and shoot, but i would keep both.

by Agent Zero on Nov 26, 2008 1:17 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

+1

It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!

by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 26, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

randolph can shoot?

not according to the stat sheet.

but keeping both is the right thing.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Nov 29, 2008 3:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Lamar or Camby???

Depends on needs of the team. personally i like lamar

by IndubitableBayAreaGM on Nov 26, 2008 2:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

DEPENDS

Depends on who’s LAMAR and who’s CAMBY. Hasn’t AR been compared to LAMAR? But so far his game looks more like CAMBY’s. More defense, not so much offense!

by scottiepimppen on Nov 26, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great sports-talk question...

There is very little chance that we will ever have to choose between the two but it makes for a pretty fun argument.

Looking at the stats so far (granted a pretty small sample for Wright, about 16 games worth at starters minutes, and an extremely small sample for Randolph) I’d take Wright. Here is my take.

Reading the Stats

Wright: Solid rebounder, good shot blocker, efficient scorer, and takes pretty good care of the ball. The only knock on him is that somehow despite the stats he has not managed to get regular minutes yet in his career.

Randolph: Very good rebounder, very good shot blocker, horribly inefficient scorer, very turnover prone.

The Eye Test

Wright: Smooth, but light. Seems to be getting a better handle on playing at the speed of the NBA. He still gets pushed around when boxing out, but he knows how to get to the right spots on offense and has pretty good timing on defense when playing on the weak-side. Good variety of moves when he gets the ball near the basket. Seems to catch his defender by surprise more often than you’d expect (left handed and slightly unorthodox moves). Needs to fill out (not get buff, just fill out naturally). I expect him to get better on man2man D and boxing out naturally over time as he does fill out. His demeanor on the court is pretty even. He doesn’t show too much emotion. He doesn’t exude confidence. But he gets the job done, and he still has a ton of upside (getting stronger and improving his mid-range shot).

Randolph: He’s like a roller coaster ride. Still really early to make a real judgement. With his freaky athleticism he makes spectacular plays on defense and in the open court. He routinely makes horrible choices with the ball. He’s very aggressive (maybe too much) and finds a way to assert himself in the game (for better or worse). He has a good handle for a big man, the problem is that 1) it’s not clear that he is a big man (could be a three) and 2) he thinks he has a much better handle than he really does. On the bright side the guy has great hustle (something that was in question comming out of LSU) and I can imagine that some of his “weaknesses” might have a lot to do with adjusting to the NBA game. At this point he is still very limited offensively, but if he can focus on his defense and calm himself down a bit he can be very effective until his offensive game matures.

Hopefully we will keep both of thee guys (although I wouldn’t consider either of them "untouchable") but if I had to choose I’d take Wright just because he is the more proven of the two. He will at the very least be a very serviceable big that will be a solid part of the rotation for years, and still has the possibility of becoming much, much more.

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 26, 2008 2:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Is Randolph being fattened for the feast?

Nellie is handing Randolph a lot of minutes that Wright never earned. Yes this is a different team, but are we seeing a maturation by experience tactic or is Nellie showcasing this guy as trade bate?

I find it hard to believe Nellie thinks Randolph gives us a better chance to win taking all those bad shots.

That being said, Wright has a long way to go. He is missing that intangible drive to impse his will. Greg Oden seems to have found it already and while he is a totally different player, Wright needs some of that attitude to be a player I want to hang onto

by warriorsvictim on Nov 26, 2008 2:38 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Rebounding?

I think Randolph has become Nellie’s go to guy when we are getting killed on the boards. He has been rebounding better than Wright this year. The problem is he is so inefficient and turnover prone that I’m not sure if it’s worth it to have him on the floor instead of Wright even if we really need the help on the boards.

Who knows you could be right about a possible trade. If the rumors about Maggs being on the block are true they may be looking to package him with Randolph. I’m not sure what that would return but it’s an interesting idea. Could we get a legit PF for those two? We’ll see…

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 26, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i'm not sure

why the warriors would look to trade maggette so early in the deal. that kills any trade value he has because it looks like the w’s are giving up on him

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or does Nellie see something?

I agree, Randolph doesn’t give us a better chance right now. And I also agree about Wright’s desire. It seems to me Nellie is more focused on desire, which is the reason they gave up on O’Bryant very early. My guess is he thinks with pt Randolph can gain the experience he needs to become an excellent player, while he doesn’t have confidence in Wright ever becoming that excellent player, unless his attitude changes. In terms of trades, I hope the W’s are looking more closely at Williams, Bellinelli, Maggette, and even Wright. A veteran 4 would serve us well and give AR someone to play behind.

by jmaaan on Nov 26, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph

Wright is good, but judging from Nelly’s comments he lacks the killer instinct and drive that makes for great players. So it seems his eventual role on a team is as a guy who cleans the boards, gets putbacks and handles passes around the basket. He’s got great length and good althleticism, so he certainly will be able to contribute, but probably not as a go-to player. I think his best possible upside is Lamarcus Aldridge. But he might be more of a Drew Gooden. OK as the 4th option on offense, better when you don’t count on him creating, best coming off the bench for a very good team.

Randolph is a bit more boom or bust, IMHO. I don’t like the W’s playing him at 3 at all. He’s quick, long, athaletic, can handle the ball for a big and will have a nice face up game. But I don’t think he’ll handle well enough to get to the basket in a half court guarded by 3’s. Or be able to defend well enough at that position or shoot well enough with a man pressing him at the 3 point line. As a 4, though, he has the skills and drive to be elite. He can block shots, defend the rim, and handle any 4 who faces him up. He can likely drive past most 4’s and with a little more refinement will posses an excellent outside shot for a 4. And we know he can rebound and be active. The biggest question with Randolph is whether he’ll develop a post game and be consistent. If he does, he’s got the chance to be a true #1 option, a la Dirk. On the other hand, if he never really develops or “gets it”, he could be Blatche. (Who despite last night’s game is an enigma). He’s got an amazing combination of size, athleticism, desire, and skill. But he needs to put it all together and continue to develop his game. Look at the comparisons to him and Crhis Bosh, in terms of age, size, college numbers and pro numbers. He needs a couple more years.

by jmaaan on Nov 26, 2008 2:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I know Nellie has said Wright’s missing a killer instinct… I have to say, I haven’t seen any evidence of that in games. He’s not an emotional player, but it’s not like there’ve been plays he’s failed to make because of a lack of intensity. It may be that Nellie’s frustrated by Wright’s rebounding… Wright will probably never be a great rebounder for a 4, and it may be that Nellie’s only willing to go big if the big guy will net him lots of rebounds. Randolph, as bad as he’s been, has been the better rebounder.

I think you’re right, that Randolph is best-suited to the 4 long-term. He’s been rebounding and blocking shots like crazy, which is the only possible reason why Nellie might find him worth playing, since he’s been nightmarishly bad at everything else. As fun as it is to dream about a Biedrins/Wright/Randolph frontcourt down the road, Wright and Randolph probably can’t coexist well as forwards. If they both blossom, we will probably want to trade one at some point, thus making this poll question relevant. And the biggest mistake we could make on the road to that is not giving Brandan Wright starter’s minutes.

I’m not rooting against Randolph. If he pans out, great. He’s very interesting, probably does have a higher ceiling than Wright, and he’s much more Nellie-friendly. But we have a real commodity in Wright, and we risk wasting it by keeping him on the bench. It’s time to see just how good this guy is. If Nellie ends up deciding he likes Wright’s game, great — we’ve found our power forward, and maybe we can trade Randolph. If Nellie still wants to go a different way, fine, trade Wright and keep Randolph. But we should at least showcase Wright enough so that we get good trade value for him.

Now that we’ve frittered away the Jack and Al expiring-in-2010 contracts, Wright and Randolph are probably the two most valuable trade chips we own. I’m okay with the idea of trading one or even both, but I’m not okay with the idea of getting less than fair value. We should be handling these guys in a way that maximizes their appeal to other teams. The way to do that is to play Wright more and to play Randolph less.

by onlxn on Nov 26, 2008 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i think

we should trade one of them for baron

by hoopscorer23 on Nov 26, 2008 2:47 PM PST reply actions   1 recs

i think

that is not a good idea

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph

Both are very intriguing players, but I think Randolph might have a better future.

The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!

by ballin on Nov 26, 2008 3:47 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

my job

warriors dont fish they hunt!

by VonteegoCummings on Nov 26, 2008 4:13 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

AR

styles remained me of C-webb and Scottie Pippen. And yet if he develop right, he could be the second coming of scottie pippen. Yea, I know it a bold statement, but this boi is going ro be mad good. Brandan Wright is too soft and isn’t really a scorer either.

by warriorfan4life on Nov 26, 2008 4:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Both !!!!!!!!

Why does it even cross your mind to get rid of one of them, these 2 studs are part of the future of this franchise, imagine in about 2 years, PG. Monta, SG. Maggette, SF. Randolph, PF. Wright, C. Biedrins………I wish I could fast forward to the future

by Monta08 on Nov 26, 2008 6:21 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

can we get rid of that Maggette part?

by sam23 on Nov 27, 2008 2:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Keep 'em both

Wright is more of an undersized four. He’s probably only about 210-15, so he can’t bang with the other PF’s in the league too much right now. However, he was about 205 his rookie season, which means when he works on his body this offseason he’ll probably come back close to if not at about 220, which is when we’ll start seeing him really do big things for us. He’s developed his mid-range and will probably come back more consistently with it next season. I like that he doesn’t try to do too much outside of his range, which shows his feel for the game is stronger than Randolph’s right now. He’s also been working on his post moves, and with experience and hard work, I think next year he possibly becomes more of an offensive weapon for us than Biedrins is (And if he can body up with the other guys, he might become a major defensive threat as well).

At about 205, Randolph is also very undersized. However, that’s not so bad when he looks like he’ll be more of a three in the future. He only needs to add about 15-20 pounds to his frame (body-type makes it look like he’ll be able to add weight on faster than Wright) before he’s able to not get bullied on the inside, since he plays so strong and is so explosive. He needs more work on his ball-handling, three-point shot and post moves, and it’d be great if he and Wright worked really hard together, rather than competing for the same spot, since having the two on the floor together might produce amazing results in the not-too-distant future.

Possible starting five of the future:

Ellis (The next Iverson?)
Maggette
Randolph (A more intense Lamar Odom?)
Wright (Bosh/Garnett comparisons might be a stretch; could definitely be our version of LaMarcus Aldridge)
Biedrins

by GSBoi86 on Nov 26, 2008 8:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Possible starting five of the future?

Ellis (The next Iverson?)
Maggette
Randolph (A more intense Lamar Odom?)
Wright (Bosh/Garnett comparisons might be a stretch; could definitely be our version of LaMarcus Aldridge)
Biedrins

   Looks pretty good but I’d move Montay to the 2 spot and trade magette and crawford for a younger quality point guard.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 26, 2008 8:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i would probably estimate

that nobody wants maggette and crawford for “a younger, quality point guard” but i wouldn’t hate that at all

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How do you suppose we get a "younger, quality point guard"

Drafting is hit or miss and we have too much money tied up in our current squad (and will continue to spend as Randolph & Wright’s contracts become an issue) to go after a quality point. Unless some team president does crack and takes Maggette for a quality point guard, we’re stuck with him.

by Mr. Monday Night on Nov 29, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i never disagreed

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 29, 2008 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wright gives us more than LaMarcus Aldridge. Aldridge is not a particularly good shooter, yet somehow seems to take 15 shots a game. He’s not a good rebounder either. Wright has been a better rebounder, better shot blocker and gets to the FT line as often without taking as many shots to do so. The biggest difference is that Portland has played Aldridge and Wright has languished on the bench. Given equal minutes, Brandan would look far, far more impressive.

Nellie’s thing against playing Wright is now bordering on pathological. Put him in and he scores and rebounds. Defensive lapses? Sure doesn’t show up on the scoreboard. The team has been performing better with him than without him. I really think Nellie’s lost the edge. I certainly hope he finds a way to get it back.

by jae on Nov 30, 2008 9:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

AR

very different players AR needs to play under control, too many turnovers but has more potential. Both need to work on strength, and defense with AR the better shot blocker and outside shooter. Both need to be money out to 15 feet (Amare, Boozer, West, Bosh) and need to get a nasty mean streak like Garnett.

by shootda3 on Nov 26, 2008 8:12 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Randolph in a Landslide

I’m not knocking Wright, but 6’10 and potentially 7 feet + point guards don’t grow on trees. I havn’t been this excited about a Warrior Rook since C-Webb. If David Stern told me that I could only keep one Warrior to start a brand new franchise and everyone else had to go, I would keep Randolph and throw everyone else to the Wolves (this includes Monta and I’m a HUGE Monta fan and feel like he is pretty much untouchable unless we get Lebron, Wade, Kobe back).

You can knock me all you want and say that I must be smoking some amazing trees, but I truly feel like Anthony Randolph is a superstar in the making. I whole heartedly BELIEVE he will be a perennial all star and HOF when it is all said and done.

In conclusion, I love B Wright and we should do whatever we can to keep both him and Rudolph the future HOF.

by JimBarnett2KevinGarnett on Nov 26, 2008 10:08 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Just wondering

Do you really believe Randolph will be a future superstar or is this just blind Warriors hope?

by antihero on Nov 26, 2008 10:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph a PG?

I’m curious, because I’m seeing this more and more around here. What on earth are you guys seeing that makes you think Randolph could ever play PG. Seriously, take a look at the rate that the guys turns the ball over compared to the amount of time he has the ball in his hands. It’s scary. He could eventually handle the ball well enough to play the SF spot regularly (he doesn’t yet) but PG? really?

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 27, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

SF – yes
PG – no

by Psion on Dec 1, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

What ever happened to the Randolph-haters on Draft Night?

by heavyccasey on Nov 27, 2008 1:09 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Define “hater”. I thought he was a terribly, terribly risky pick, one who had more probability of being worthless than of being a superstar. I thought that the questions about his shooting (not necessarily his in the gym skill, but his shot selection) were terribly, terribly important as shot selection doesn’t seem to be something that many guys actually improve. Happens, sure, but it’s not common. He also seemed ready to turn the ball over with abundance. I’d love to be shown wrong, but I wouldn’t put money on his success.

Honestly, I’ve been happier with what I’ve seen than I expected because he does seem to have a nose for boards. I’d rather have a big guy who does the things a big should do (high percentage shots and rebounds) real well than one who doesn’t do those things particularly well but is more ‘versatile’. If you’re going for guard skills, hell, just play the real thing.

Those who somehow see him as a 6-10 point guard must be looking at a different player. He seems to have some pretty good skills, for a guy that tall, but he’s not shown me anything to make me think that he can direct an offense, unless you’re planning on dealing with 25 turnovers a game.

by jae on Nov 27, 2008 8:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

jae's not a hater

he just likes some things and doesn’t like other things. something like that.

the thing about Randolph’s handles is that he’s been so intent so far to show the world that he can dribble at the next level that he overdoes it and winds up turning it over. his handles can be impressive at times, but i have yet to see the reaction time necessary for him to utilize it against the speed and hands of the NBA level.

I pray i never have to use a gun again...

...unless i'm at a strip club parking lot...

...and somebody tries to run me over with their car...

...But how often does that happen??

by ssmokinjoe on Dec 5, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

to me

right now, they are equally important to the team. but randolph is a year younger, a year less experienced, and gets another year to grow. plus, his contract is cheaper than wright’s, and we hold it for a year more. here is the contract breakdown:

Wright: 2.5 / 2.7 / 3.4 / 4.6
Randolph: 1.7 / 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.9 / 4.0

rounded numbers, the last year being a qualifying offer

…so, i voted randolph

by Run Dubz on Nov 27, 2008 10:58 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'd rather keep both ...

I wanna see more of C Biedrins, PF Wright, SF Randolph on the court at the same time.

B. Wright is more calm, cool and collective!
Randolph is more raw with it!

by D3F1N1T3 on Nov 27, 2008 12:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I like B Wright better

love that hook shot. love the hustle play

I will always be your fan JRich. Good Luck

by chili01 on Nov 27, 2008 7:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Some great posts

First I think we have to stop basing possible moves this season on the very, very slim chance of making the playoffs. I don’t see it happening even with a successful return by Monta (wish I did). That said, why would we want to trade away either AR or BW when we really don’t know what they’re going to become with a little more seasoning? It’s still too early to know if they might be a good future tandem or if they will occupy the same position. We are a very young team and young teams are inconsistent; I’m willing to live with that for a couple of years. That’s another reason why I’m excited about the addition of Jamal Crawford; it just might make the transition a little easier.

by Jeffo on Nov 28, 2008 9:17 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Rebuilding again?

I’m all for a team getting young talent and developing that talent. However, I think you need to mix vets with the young guys to show them how to play, and how to act. But that said, you usually would do it with good, reasonably priced players that can move on when it’s time for the young guys. I don’t really know what we’re doing right now. Jackson and Harrington were supposed to be great lockerroom guys. But Maggette? He’s never really won. He doesn’t share the ball well and he’s in his prime with a long term contract. Additionally, he’s eating up minutes that Wright and Randolph should get, if they are to develop. Truiaf is getting the minutes he should get, but I think he’s overpriced and doesn’t have a lot to teach. Still, with his passion and intensity I don’t have a problem with him down on the bench. In short, it seems that we lost one vet in his prime (Baron) and gained another (Maggette) but went from playoff caliber team to rebuilding team. Without gaining any draft picks (lost one with Williams), trading for any new young players (Crawford and Harrington are a wash), or saving any salary cap space. To compound the issue, Nelson is not a great coach at developing young bigs. So our two best prospects, Wright and Randolph, are at a disadvantage. This year has been disappointing to me……..

by jmaaan on Nov 29, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It hasn’t been a Baron-for-Maggette trade. Thus far, it’s been a Baron-AND-MONTA-for-Maggette trade… obviously that one’s not going to work out well.

We haven’t seen the real team yet. I’m not saying that this will be an outright good team when Monta’s back, but it will be dramatically better than what we’ve seen so far. The youth movement will look a lot more full-bodied come January.

by onlxn on Nov 29, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hope you’re right. I’d like to see some promise again. I think my problem is that I never really believed Monta was a 1. Crawford isn’t a 1 either, IMO. We need a playmaker who can push the ball up the court and find open men in trasition. I really hope Monta can be that guy, but I fear that is putting a lot of hope on a guy who hasn’t really proven he can play the 1. Still, if he can create for others, that would make all the difference. Nonetheless, you are right, his presence in any form will make the team better.

by jmaaan on Nov 29, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph has superstar written all over him

  No, I think those are just tattoos

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 28, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Minutes

Too funny. But I do think Randolph has the chance at being a star. My concern is that he should be forced to play down low, rather than away from the basket as he is now. Yes, he’s skinny and not strong. But I think he needs a year of getting beat up in the trenches to illustrate what he needs to work on. I think he could become a Chris Bosh type, if they’d work on developing him in that manner. Bosh was the same hight and weight coming out of college. He was one and done, too. They put up very similar numbers in college playing against simliar competition. They both have the length and athleticism and focus to be very good. Bosh struggled his first year in the league, played better his second and came into his own in his third. The key was he was getting decent minutes, he was not shifted between the 3 and 4 and he knew what was expected. He was to become a traditional 4. I think we should use the same approach with Randolph. 15 minutes a game. Play around the basket. Rebound, block shots, work on post moves. Wright can also get good minutes because he can start at the 4 and also back up Biedrins at the 5. He should be getting 20-25 minutes, IMHO. And Biedrins should get his 35 with Turiaf getting 10. Play small the rest of the time.

by jmaaan on Nov 29, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's end with the Bosh comparisons just because they're both skinny.

The Bosh comparisons are pretty far off. To become a ‘Bosh type’, he’ll have to become an efficient scorer, something he hasn’t shown any tendencies towards.

The notion that Bosh “struggled” his first year as having any semblance to where Randolph is is pretty comical. Are you actually recalling watching Bosh more than once or twice back then or is this just a throwaway line used for the hell of it? He ‘struggled’ to 7.5 boards and 12 points on 46% from the floor (what Randolph managed against college competition a year ago) in 33 mpg. That sort of struggling is a far cry from 35% from the field.

And no, it wasn’t a case where Bosh started out terrible and got better. His line from month to month as a rookie was pretty even. He shot as well at the beginning of the year as he did at the end of the year. Bosh had good judgement on his shot selection in his lone year in college, knowing which shots to take and which ones to pass up. He connected on more than half his shots from the floor and was accurate when he shot from long range. Randolph was not a particularly efficient shooter in college and didn’t seem to know which shots he should not take. He didn’t show much accuracy from outside either. It’s possible that he’ll develop a better shooting eye, but that seems to be one of the more difficult things for a player to acquire. There don’t seem to be that many guys who weren’t accurate shooters in college who suddenly figure it out in the pros. Many guys extend their range as their careers progress, but they seem more often to be the types who were already high percentage shooters who realize when their range improves rather than guys who have their fg% come up as they finally figure out how to shoot.

by jae on Nov 29, 2008 1:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To become a ‘Bosh type’, he’ll have to become an efficient scorer, something he hasn’t shown any tendencies towards

  Hi jae, I don’t know much about Bosh but I do think randolf has promise. If he can straighten out his mental game he could do pretty well using his athleticism and his hustle. Nellie might not be the best coach to bring out the best in rudolf’s game, he’s more interested in molding players into his pigeon holes than turning out well rounded ballers.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 29, 2008 2:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree that Randolph’s a fabulous athlete and seems to have physical tools that make great players great, but the parts that he lacks aren’t insignificant at all and I think that the “mental game” is such a gigantic component. It’s easy to look at the athleticism and somehow conclude that it should translate, that there should be a way to turn that into heavy production, but I think an honest assessment of who has become successful and who hasn’t indicates that the “mental game” is as difficult to develop as anything else. More often than not, phenom athletes who don’t show some dominance early, who have the ‘tools’ but don’t seem to have them put together do not ever figure this out. I’m not saying this to rain on people’s ‘potential’ parade. It’s a reality check against the psychosis that seems to believe that putting it all together is somehow secondary to having the skills in the first place.

I don’t know that it’s some problem with the way his head is screwed on. It doesn’t seem to be like a Dunleavy issue where he’s tentative, where he’s clearly lacking something, some fire, some drive. He sounds very bright, very dedicated when interviewed. He seems like he’s probably a good teammate and has the attitude that is necessary. But similar to the observation that VERY few hitters in baseball who didn’t show at least respectable plate discipline for drawing walks, for figuring out which pitches they could and could not hit, it appears to me that VERY few players who are turnover prone and force bad shots ever get this together for long enough to become impact players.

I also think that there’s a tantalizing lure of a multi-skilled player, but that it’s usually better to have a guy do a couple of things real well and expand his game later than to do many things and to expect them all to gel. I’ve seen more players go from useful and good with limited skill sets, guys who do some things real well and later pick up more skills than I have seen dominant athletes who have glaring holes (and turning the ball over a ton and not having the ability to get shots to drop -regardless of the ’range- are such holes) figure out how to cure their glaring problems.

Tall guys who can handle the ball some, who seem to have the coordination you like in smaller guys get labeled as having ‘guard skills’ the reality is that few of them can actually competently play guard and for the play or two a game where they can effectively lure out a big and create a wing mismatch, few can adequately use these against guards so if they don’t have the qualities that make bigs effective as bigs, the versatility is more often than not fool’s gold.

In this regard, when I see people say that Randolph has more ‘potential’ than Wright, I think most are fooling themselves. The two most important things a big man can do are A) rebound and B) convert the high percentage shot. Randolph rebounds well so far but shows no tendency to get the ball in the basket often enough to be an asset. The ‘potential’ label is tossed on him because he’s got the height of a 4 but shows some of the skillset of a 3 in that he doesn’t look uncomfortable handling the ball. But let’s be honest. If he was a tall off guard, 6-7 or 6-8 would we think he had good handles? Would we really think him to be an alarmingly good athlete? If Randolph is really going to play there, he’s going to go up against these guys and it’s going to be hard for an advantage in height to overcome the deficits he’ll have in other aspects central to the position. Wright, while seemingly not as willing to take jumpers or put the ball on the floor does do one of the things that makes a big very valuable (he converts most of his shots) while doing the other at an at least acceptable level. That’s not as flashy, but it’s more valuable currently, MUCH more valuable and if forced to bet money, I’d bet that Wright is more likely to expand his skills than AR is to put his together in an effective way. Wright may not be the rebounder that Randolph is -I’ve been very, very happy with the way that Randolph finds the ball- but that edge is not going to matter much if Randolph never learns which shots he should and shouldn’t take and tries to exploit the ‘perimeter skills’ rather than sticking to some far less flashy bread and butter.

by jae on Nov 29, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have no idea why there’s ‘strikethrough’ in that post. It wasn’t intentional at all.

by jae on Nov 29, 2008 2:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

‘strikethrough’

   Someone explained why that happens a while back but I can’t remember what they said.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 29, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Completely agree with all of this.

To me, the best argument for Randolph’s potential is that he has been good at many of the things you expect from a big man. He rebounds excellently, blocks shots very well and seems fairly comfortable scoring when he’s right around the basket. He’s at his worst when he’s trying to play like something other than a big man, handling and shooting from the outside.

I think Wright’s better, and I think Wright will continue to be better. But Randolph would improve a bit if Nellie would tighten the leash on him — forbid him from creating, and make him just find his points in the flow of the offense, the way Wright does. That’d be a much better version of Randolph than the wannabe point guard we’ve been seeing. Tthe fact that he can dribble could stunt his development as a power forward, if Nellie doesn’t do something about it.

by onlxn on Nov 29, 2008 3:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm...

I’ve been thinking about that too. I wonder if he can focus on defense and rebounding and stop trying to create on offense all the time. It sounds so simple but that would take a pretty good amount of mental discipline even if enforced by the coach. Like JAE points out this kind of transformation isn’t common. I think if Nellie “tightened the leash” it might just result in very limited playing time for AR.

That’s what makes players like Randolph so frustrating. He shows you that he can do some things so well. Things that we really need right now (Rebounding) but he plays so poorly in other aspects that he becomes a liability (or close to one). I’m still hoping that he can settle into the speed of the NBA and find a way to operate comfortably on offense but I’m not holding my breath.

"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy

by olympicmike on Nov 29, 2008 4:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"Just because they're both skinny"

“The Bosh comparisons are pretty far off.”…. “The notion that Bosh "struggled" his first year as having any semblance to where Randolph is is pretty comical. Are you actually recalling watching Bosh more than once or twice back then or is this just a throwaway line used for the hell of it?”

Well, you’re a pretty smug bastard aren’t you? Do you normally just try to bowl people over with your rhetoric? Let’s take a look at the facts:

Yes, they when entering the league they were both similar in size- height, weight, length- and both left handed 4’s. But additionally, Bosh played one year in college at 18 and entered the league at 19, just like Randolph. In fact, here are the stats from their one year in college:

Randolph 32.8 min 15.6 pts 46.4fg 69.3ft 8.5reb 1.2asst 1.1stl 2.3blk
Bosh 31.0 min 15.6 pts 56.0fg 72.9ft 9.0reb 1.2asst 1.0stl 2.2blk

Obviously they had very similar numbers in college playing against good competition. Now, in their first year in the league, averaged over 36 minutes per game:

Randolph 36.0 min 13.3pts 35.2fg 66.7ft 12.3reb 2.1asst .9stl 3.6blk
Bosh 36.0 min 12.3pts 45.9fg 70.1ft 8.0reb 1.1asst .8stl 1.5blk

Now, are the numbers exact? Of course not. But “far off comparsions” “just because they’re both skinny” “used just for the hell of it”? No. The comparisons in both college and pro’s are pretty compelling thus far.

Yes, Bosh was a more polished post player coming into the league. But much of the difference in their minutes and style can be attributed to circumstances as well. Randolph has come on a team that had designs on making the playoffs and had drafted a young promising 4 the year before. So his minutes are limited and his coach is trying him at the 3. Bosh was the savior of the franchise and their future 4 right from the start. He was given minutes while he made mistakes and allowed to play through them. And he was being groomed as a low post 4.

When Randolph shoots around the basket, he shoots for a high percentage. It took Bosh a while to develop his 18 foot jump shot with consistency, that’s not what you start with in this league. As I said in the post, Randolph should be groomed to play around the basket, he should be given consistent (15) minutes and allowed to develop his game. That is the way to groom a players like that .

Even with this treatment, he’ll figure it out, but it will be slower. Now I’m not saying he’s exactly like Chris Bosh, or will be as good as Bosh. No two players are exactly alike and I believe Bosh is his ceiling, not necessarily his destination. But I do think he has the body type and skill set to become a player in a similar mold. And I certainly think your categorization of the comparisons as “comical” was way over the top, and frankly d*ckish.

by jmaaan on Dec 1, 2008 11:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

relax little guy!

take it easy man! don’t get all butt hurt about the comparison between Wright and Bosh! i’m not saying they are one in the same. read my post i just said that when we got Wright i envisioned him to be more of a Chris Bosh type of player. That was when i first seen him, obviously, in his second year, he’s nowhere near a Chris Bosh. he’s developing into his own type of player. He runs the floor pretty well, snatches boards before other people can get them, and uses his quickness more than post up skills to get baskets. he was pretty efficient in the first half verses Miami but then we didn’t see him until Maggette tweaked his ankle and had to sit out a minute. i don’t wanna talk about that game, i still smell the foul stench from that horrible game! anyways, calmn down little guy, relaaaaaaxx!! you sound hella mad in your post, it’s just a “what if” post! do you have anger problems? maybe you’re just as pissed as i am about where this warrior franchise ended up from the “we believe” season 2 years ago and where this team is going.

by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Dec 2, 2008 8:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph 32.8 min 15.6 pts 46.4fg 69.3ft 8.5reb 1.2asst 1.1stl 2.3blk
Bosh 31.0 min 15.6 pts 56.0fg 72.9ft 9.0reb 1.2asst 1.0stl 2.2blk

Obviously they had very similar numbers in college playing against good competition. Now, in their first year in the league, averaged over 36 minutes per game:

You use the wold ‘obviously’ incorrectly.
If you consider shooting 46% and 56% similar, sure, it’s similar, similar in the sense that both are numbers. But since there’s a world of difference, one indicating doing something at a very high level, the other indicating something else, then they are not similar. They are similar in the sense that the aspects of their game that don’t involve shooting the ball are similar. But since that’s a big, big part of the game, as important as any other and far, far more important than most in the comparison, it makes the rest of the comparison’s similarity rather pointless.

Randolph 36.0 min 13.3pts 35.2fg 66.7ft 12.3reb 2.1asst .9stl 3.6blk
Bosh 36.0 min 12.3pts 45.9fg 70.1ft 8.0reb 1.1asst .8stl 1.5blk

Now, are the numbers exact? Of course not. But "far off comparsions" "just because they’re both skinny" "used just for the hell of it"? No. The comparisons in both college and pro’s are pretty compelling thus far.

Hmmm. How best to put this. Ummm. No, it isn’t compelling. The difference between a 35% shooter and a 46% shooter is not compelling in the least. By compelling you must mean something different than what the word actually means.

The difference between the two is stark in a key area, an area important enough to pretty much render the rest of the comparison meaningless. It’s the difference between someone shooting well enough that he’s not a complete liability and someone who has no business at all in the league. Your comparison does not note the important feature that “per 36” Randolph takes 16 shots to score his 14 points, something that is not just lousy, it’s abysmal. Bosh did not share this poor ratio. Being as far off in the scoring efficiency as the two are both in college and the pros makes the comparison rather silly.

If you would actually like to make a statistical argument, I suggest learning more about the relationship between statistical performance and wins in the NBA. It does not appear that you have done so.

When Randolph shoots around the basket, he shoots for a high percentage.

Presently, his FG% on ‘inside’ shots is about 53. Bosh in his first year shot 60 on his ‘inside’ shots.

It took Bosh a while to develop his 18 foot jump shot with consistency, that’s not what you start with in this league.

As a rookie, Bosh hit 39% of his jumpers. Randolph presently stands at 27% on his jumpers. It did take Bosh time to get to where he is, but Bosh came in to the league with a much better college 3 pt than Randolph, whose percentage didn’t suggest that he was going to be much of a jumpshooter. And he hasn’t been.

Randolph hasn’t been as good with the inside shot, hasn’t been as good with the outside shot, wasn’t as good in college at either either.

So no, the comparison is not good. Sorry, but it’s not my fault. You were the one who decided to make it.

And I certainly think your categorization of the comparisons as "comical" was way over the top, and frankly d*ckish.

Perhaps then you should not make comical comparisons.

by jae on Dec 2, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You’re changing the argument after being proven wrong in the point of contention. It’s common when someone is wrong but doesn’t want to admit it, keep the target moving.

It’s OK, I wouldn’t expect you to admit you were wrong, but let’s recap the origination of the argument and the points made.

You said “let’s end the Bosh comparisons just because they are both skinny.” That is the original point of contention.

I explained that the comparisons don’t come just because they are both skinny. They come for several reasons. Because of body size, athleticism, age, experience, and numbers.

You then argued that in one of those categories there is one piece that doesn’t match. That although their size, age, athleticism, position, experience, scoring, rebounding, assists, steals and blocks are all very comparable, their fg% is off.

Now, if the original point of contention was that they were exactly the same, I’d tell you I was wrong. Because it appears all the numbers are comparable except one.

If the question was if they have very similar numbers, I’d argue I was correct based on the preponderance of evidence. I don’t buy the OJ argument, that one piece that doesn’t fit means all the other evidence should be thrown out.

But those weren’t the issue being argued. The issue was if the only reason for comparison was because they were skinny. And based on all the evidence, it’s obvious that is not the only reason for comparison. So we can conclude pretty easily that you are wrong.

by jmaaan on Dec 2, 2008 9:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The similarity in their numbers basically comes down to the fact that they’re both big men. They’re actually not similar at all… Randolph blocks and rebounds significantly more than Bosh did as a rookie, but can’t shoot at all and — a relevant stat you omitted — turns the ball over 2.5 times as often as Bosh did.

Superficial similarities between numbers of players who play the same position aren’t surprising. The point is that Bosh’s numbers add up to extremely effective basketball, and Randolph’s numbers add up to extremely ineffective basketball… that’s a more relevant difference than any superficial similarities.

I’m not disputing that Anthony Randolph has potential, but using Chris Bosh as an example to show it is just not the right way to go about it. Doing that just makes you realize how good Bosh was then, and how far Randolph has to go.

by onlxn on Dec 2, 2008 10:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

One other factor that everybody seems to be ignoring is...

Bosh, in his rookie year, played 33.5 minutes per game. Randolph? 13.5 minutes per game.

Hey guys! Kosta Perovic averaged 10/13/2 every 38 minutes he was on the floor! He’s friking awesome! If only we’d given him some more time, he’s like Ben Wallace in his prime in Detroit!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 3, 2008 6:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I’m simply saying that I think his upside potential is that of Bosh. I’m not stating he’s as good now as Bosh during his rookie season but simply that the tools are there. Will he ever be as good as Bosh is now? I don’t know. But what I disagree with jae about is the point that comparisons can only be made because they are both skinny.

Obviously I’m not the first or last who will make Bosh comparisons, he passes the eye test and has the developmental potential to become an All Star in that mold. In fact, doing a quick search shows comparisons have been made between the two for quite a while. As far back as 2006 NBADraft.net wrote that has was “similar to Chris Bosh at the same stage of his career”. More recently on NBA.com Draft Central said, “At the ceiling….are Chris Bosh and Kevin Garnett”. SI.com reported this from an NBA scout "I’m looking at Chris Bosh [when he was a freshman at Georgia Tech]. He’s from Dallas, he’s skinny and left-handed, skilled and athletic — all like Bosh. He doesn’t shoot it quite as well as Bosh did, and we have a lot more to learn about him over the next two months. But he could become Chris Bosh.’’

So, again, my beef isn’t that I think he’ll become Bosh and others posters don’t. My beef is jae stating that the comparisons are comical. Obviously the comparisons are there, and part of comparing is finding similarities and differences.

by jmaaan on Dec 3, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OHHHH!!!

If you’re talking about “upside potential”… Why stop there? He could become Scotty Pippen! Or really anybody. You were comparing his college stats to those of Bosh and using that as judgement that they’re “similar players”, which they’re not. Citing NBADraft.net’s pre-Draft review is like citing Sarah Palin’s post Veep nomination wikipedia page as “factual”. It’s simply beneath you. Stop it.

he’s skinny and left-handed, skilled and athletic — all like Bosh

Ummm… these are not particularly descriptive here… if he’s left-handed, skilled, and athletic he’s like ME! So all I gotta do to get in the NBA draft is get skinny? Good-bye cheeseburger!

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 3, 2008 12:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, look at the original post. I talked about what type of player he could become. Obviously he doesn’t have the same body type and skill set of a young Pippen. He blocks shots, rebounds, and will score well around the basket. Pippen came in as an athletic defensive wing player.

And, yes, if you’re 19, 6’10", skilled, athletic, and a lottery picky, then put down the cheeseburger and work on your inside game.

You and jae like to pick out individual pieces to the exclusion of the whole. My comparison included college numbers but also body type, age, experience, mental attributes. Please re-read my original comment:

"I think he could become a Chris Bosh type, if they’d work on developing him in that manner. Bosh was the same hight and weight coming out of college. He was one and done, too. They put up very similar numbers in college playing against simliar competition. They both have the length and athleticism and focus to be very good. "

by jmaaan on Dec 3, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But he could become Chris Bosh.’’

  Who would Bosh become then? Does Bosh have any say in the matter??

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 3, 2008 3:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OK, I personally doubt that most people would have made Randolph/Bosh comparisons if Randolph wasn’t skinny. I don’t think that there’s enough similarities that if they weren’t physically similar anyone would come up with it. I say that because last year, the comparison (not necessarily from you, but widely used) was Wright and Bosh. Since Wright and Randolph seem to be rather different sorts of players with different skill sets, it struck me that what people were really looking at was their profile in shadow, seeing tall skinny guys.

You’re not the first or last to make the Bosh/Randolph comparison, but I think too many people are trying to find a successful skinny big in trying to figure out how a skinny big can be successful and forcing the comparison.

I did think the statisical comparisons was, because the difference between their shooting percentages is so huge, the difference between good and bad. What they did in college was rather starkly different. A better comparison from his college line though would be Brad Sellers (also tall and skinny and athletic, but fearful of rebounding in the pros). Look at what he did as a frosh at Wisconsin. Sorry if comical was the wrong word. It did seem forced though, and as someone who has done statistical analysis professionally, it just didn’t fly.

I’m not sure what you mean entirely by saying the tools are there but perhaps that’s because I see that Bosh’s tools included accurate shooting and an accurate three point shot back to his lone year of college while Randolph hasn’t displayed that. I also don’t really think of Bosh as having anything akin to SF skills handling the ball. Honest question: is that part of the ‘tools’ or is it more about some other athletic ability? I tend to think of one’s shooting results as part of their tools, but some may not. Some may think that it’s something that’s more pliable and can be taught.

by jae on Dec 3, 2008 3:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree that physical stature is certainly a big reason for the comparisons, but my disagreement is that I don’t believe it’s the only reason.

The physical piece makes sense to consider, IMO, because it does speak to a players abilities, particularly on the defensive end. A guy with the size and athleticism of Boozer, for instance, will never become a real shot blocking theat. But a guy like Bosh with length, quickness and leaping abililty could be a good shot blocker and defend the rim. When people look at the upside of Randolph, or more accurately the type of player he could develop into, many would naturally look towards a player with similar physical attributes. He’ll never carve out space like Boozer or, likely, have the same power, so even if their numbers were similar, it wouldn’t be a natural comparison for most people. So, you’re right, I don’t think people would make the comparisons if they didn’t have the same body style. But, again, I don’t think that’s the only reason for comparison.

In terms of statistics, I guess we won’t agree. I do think that fg% is important, but I also think the rebounding and shot blocking numbers are important comparisons that hold up. And while he doesn’t convert at the rate of Bosh in similar points in their careers, scoring average is still fairly significant, IMHO. If he shot 55% in college but didn’t show the ability to score, I would have more of a problem than him showing the ability to score but only shooting 45%. In his current role, I don’t feel that Nelson allowing him to try to play a wing game is helping his shooting percentages at all. In my original post I suggested that the W’s force him to play close to the basket, where he would convert a higher percentage. In other words, I think the situation a player is in plays a role in his procuction statistics. Again, I think this is the area we’ll disagree with the most, but I’ll just leave it at that, that we disagree on the statistical relevance.

Finally, with respect to tools, I think certain skills are projectable. For instance, if a guy has an easy, nice looking shot but isn’t accurate further away from the basket, a lot of scouts will project that with more game experience and repitition, the shots will fall. Often times guys will look at free throw shooting as part of that as well. Randolph falls into that category. He gets his shot off quickly, high, and easily. It’s not a guarantee, obviously, that the shot will develop, but it’s a good way to project. And I think most scouts who see him shoot will agree. It may literally take 5 years before he can consistantly knock down that shot, but it looks like he has the tools to make it happen.

He already shows good ball handling skills for a 4. He brings the ball up the floor, can use both hands, goes behind his back easily and can handle a little pressure. That to me projects to above average ball handling skills for a 4. With respect to feel and skill for rebounding and timing of blocked shots, he’s already shown he has the ability to be good there.

So when I say the tools are there, I mean he needs refinement, but that he’s projectable in those areas. Most players are not. Biedrins, for example, will likely never be able to hit open 18 footers, or 12 footers for that matter, consistantly. The shooting stroke just isn’t there, and while that’s partially learned, it also seems to be partially natural. Randolph has it naturally. Bosh had it naturally. It may take Randolph longer than Bosh to develop it, but I believe the tools are there and he’ll develop it.

But again, that’s not what make Bosh great. He can shoot the outside shot as most All Star caliber 4’s can. He can rebound like they can and he can block shots. But the final piece is the low post game, that is mandatory for a quality 4. And to me, that’s the one piece with a huge question mark in Randolph’s game. He’s got the size, athletic ability, and tools to do things All Star caliber players do. But does he have the willingness and desire to develop a quality low post game? To me, that’s the key question and the part that will determine if he can play in the mold of a Bosh or just be another big that had tremendous promise.

by jmaaan on Dec 3, 2008 5:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To clarify, when I say “He can shoot the outside shot as most All Star caliber 4’s can. He can rebound like they can and he can block shots.” I’m referring to Bosh. Grammar and spelling are especially poor on this post, did it quickly…..

by jmaaan on Dec 3, 2008 5:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randolph does look comfortable shooting. I think that’s relevant, but I think it’s easy to overstate the relevance of that… there are a number of NBA veterans who have easy, smooth releases who still can’t hit jumpers consistently.

The freedom Nellie allows Randolph cuts both ways. Yes, Randolph would probably do much better if he was constrained to playing down low. But you’d think a really good player, even a raw one, would want to play winning basketball, if given the freedom to do so. Wright’s offensive requirements aren’t structured either when he comes in, but you don’t see him shooting much from the outside, even though his shot looks just as good as Randolph’s. Why? Because Wright instinctively plays good, effective offense,and he knows he’s more useful down low. He does the things he’s best at, tries to avoid the other things. Randolph is free to make those same wise choices, but doesn’t — he continues to do the things he’s not good at. I don’t know if it’s selfishness, nerves or what, but it doesn’t speak well for his basketball IQ.

He could improve. Actually, in the last couple games, he’s looked a little savvier out there. But he’s been put in situations where he could easily have succeeded, and he’s dribbled and shot his way out of success so far. It makes you question his decision-making.

by onlxn on Dec 3, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I agree you have to question his decision making. If I’m being positive, I think Nelson is letting him prove to himself that he can’t be successful playing that type of game at this level. What’s the line about insanity? Doing the same the over and over once it’s proven it won’t work. Let’s see how he responds.

I think your comparison with Wright makes some sense, but I’d remind you that he’s in his second year. I think he learned last year what it’ll take for him to be successful in this league and he’s focusing on doing those things. I would hope Randolph will learn and focus on what he needs to do, too. But as I said originally, I think the W’s need to be a part of that by making him play closer to the basket. Most coaches wouldn’t put up with that.

by jmaaan on Dec 3, 2008 5:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, jmaaan, I did not change my argument. The comparison between Bosh and Randolph was superficial. Their statistics aren’t similar, not if you actually pay attention to what makes for winning basketball.

It’s ok, I wouldn’t expect you to recognize the difference between someone who shoots the ball well, and has since before he was in the college game and someone who doesn’t and hasn’t. If the comparison comes up because of numbers, and you’re considering them significantly similar, it shows you don’t understand the numbers, that you can read a stat line or a box score, but don’t understand what it means.

I don’t care if you don’t “buy the argument.” Your opinion on statistical matters has now been demonstrated to be abundantly worthless.

by jae on Dec 3, 2008 7:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

wright

the way his game is developing reminds me a little of the way goose was brought along. not a lot of MPG in year 1, more in year 2, not trying to do too much, playing mostly to his strengths and not being terribly assertive.
also, wright is much more efficient in everything he does, however, when the W’s revert to the iso-ball hogging game, wright is the quickest player to become absolutely invisible on the floor, he doesn’t demand the ball (nor should he), he isn’t thinking too much about getting his shot. he’ll happily clean up and put back.
all that being said, getting rid of either of these guys probably isn’t in the W’s best interest.

the stop calling him "beans" movement

by pervisNeverNervous on Nov 29, 2008 4:00 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Randolph

He is a better dribbler, a better shooter, and he has major potential to be the next star. Don’t get me wrong wright is good and all but Randolph has more assets in his game

by GSW Fan on Nov 30, 2008 4:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

As a ‘better shooter’ he certainly hasn’t shown that this ’better shooting translates to making more shots.

I think many people get hung up on some ‘assets’ of a player’s game seemingly ignoring that the assets he doesn’t have (shot selection; taking care of the damn ball) are something that will just come along given the right set of circumstances. Past evidence indicates that this is seldom the case.

by jae on Nov 30, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He is a better dribbler, a better shooter, and he has major potential to be the next star

 Compared to a the garden variety point guard Rudolf is a poor dribbler, he’s a poor shooter compared to the typical shooting guard. He does seem to be a good shot blocker and rebounder but that should be expected for a guy his size. The main thing that makes him appear different is he hasn’t grown into his height yet so he is faster than he’ll be once he gains weight and strength. If he learns to play to his height’s strong points he’ll be a very good player due to his hustle but if he tries to be a small guy he’ll probably be a disappointment. Fighting physics is never too bright.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 30, 2008 7:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

for dribbling, we are not expecting him to be a point guard. We have seen him take the ball the entire length of the court and also we have seen he can get by a few people off of the dribble. In summer league I believe that he was a very good shooter. The main thing is that with these skills we see more potential. Yes he won’t be able to go in there right now and shoot a high percentage from distance, but we know he can shoot and will improve because he is so young and he will become more adept with his ball handling as he matures and improves. The skills he possesses are extremely rare for a man with his frame.

by Agent Zero on Nov 30, 2008 8:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

randolph

Randolph by a long shot. He’s got a hunger to be a great player and he will become one in a few years with that attitude. Plus, did I mention that he could one day play point – forward?

by XIAOXIAO on Nov 30, 2008 11:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Randolph is fuckin terrible

why the hell is everyone so amazed by this kid? HE SUCKS. HES TERRIBLE. he is mikel pietrus but tall and skinny – all the abilities but not smart.

i think randolph, in time, will be a very very quality player. but unless he improves his decision making skills (which some players never develop a la MP) hes just not a good player. but as of now, i rather just not see him play more than 5 minutes a night, or garbage time. why he was in the game late against chicago is ridiculous.

but like i said, his potential is amazing, just not realized at the moment. hopefully all this playing time hes getting shapes him up quick.

bwright on the other hand plays smart. he doesnt play beyond himself like AR. he knows hes not a superstar unlike AR. hes a quality player and it disgusting his minutes have decreased while AR’s increased. personally, i think bwright should start at the PF spot and get 25+ minutes a night. he does too much to be sitting on the bench half the game.

by BillieHoyle on Dec 1, 2008 1:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

take it easy bro!

just chill man. AR is 19 years old and playing under the wrong coach! hopefully we can drop Nellie and pick up a younger head coach who still has passion for the game and he can teach AR and Wright how to play and then we can utilize them and play to their strengths. He’s horrible right now because he’s being put into a situation where everyone wants him to make an impact right away! he’s no lebron james but with the right coaching he can be mentioned along side him. the dude is just trying to do too much right now and just needs to let the game come to him. he’s only 19 man..give the guy some time and we’ll see if he’s the real deal.

by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Dec 1, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i agree

but he still sucks haha. im just saying AR shouldnt be getting the playing time hes getting… unless we decide that our season is pointless anyway… which who knows, might not be a terrible idea. i think he’ll be a great player just like everyone else but just not now.

anyways, too bad we dont have dantoni instead of nellie.

by BillieHoyle on Dec 1, 2008 3:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

asdf
AR is 19 years old and playing under the wrong coach!

You’d figure a 6’10" dude who’s fast, long, and athletic would be ideal for a mismatch guy like Nellie (who I’m sure had some input in drafting the guy).

He’s horrible right now because he’s being put into a situation where everyone wants him to make an impact right away!

This is somewhat true of every lottery pick, but Randolph is the one seems to have decided that his impact needs to be on sinking 20 foot jumpers. I’m sure Nellie would be ecstatic if all he did was rebound, block shots, defend, and take advantage of mismatches. Unless Nellie is saying “Do whatever you like, take every shot, heck go ahead and throw that bullet bounce pass through the teeth of the defense”, I don’t see how it’s Nellie’s fault that Randolph is making stupid egotistical decisions on the basketball court. He’s the one who thinks he can do everything, he’s the one who thinks he’s the next LeBron James. It’s not Nellie’s doing.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Dec 3, 2008 7:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I’m sure Nellie would be ecstatic if all he did was rebound, block shots, defend, and take advantage of mismatches.

At this point, I’m not so sure. Nellie hasn’t seemed particularly enamored with Wright, a player who does rebound, block shots and take the scoring given to him. I’m not sure why Nellie would somehow drop favor on Randolph were he to similarly play within himself. Frankly, I don’t know what Nellie’s trying to do with the team at this point.

by jae on Dec 3, 2008 8:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i think bwright should start at the PF spot and get 25+ minutes a night.

  He can’t shoot good enough to play power forward with Dris cause Dris can’t shoot either, one of the bigs has to have a shot to keep the defense guessing.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 1, 2008 2:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

they dont need to shoot

they can play some solid defense, and make high percentage shots and tip ins. we have multiple players that can give 20+ a night – maggette, crawford, jax, monta when hes back, and even buike is capable.

all i know is that maggette at the 4 may work some nights but its more a gimmick than anything.

by BillieHoyle on Dec 1, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

damn

we are screwed. how will we sign these guys as we have a ton in guranteed contracts when theirs expire.

by montadaboss on Dec 1, 2008 2:40 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

they just need playing time

Players always need some playing time to really show their true talent.
Nelli just doesn’t give them a damn chance to prove themselves.
fortunately (or unfortunately) because of Monta’s injury, the two have gotten more playing time then they could have even imagined. but enough of the crap.
my opinion is taking Randolph over Wright. I see randolph capable of more potential later on. He plays smart, D is strong, and can shoot around the key. definently a keeper and can make huge plays. hes just a little sluggish cause hes still a kid.
but mainly they just need more playing time to show their game.

by TeamBarnes on Dec 1, 2008 11:27 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

just throw AR

to pippen and he turn him into a great sf like pippens, or let phil jackson coach him and you will see the huge development. Elf boy need to hit the weight room. He can’t handle or shoot the ball period. put him on sean mays diet and sent him to weight room afterward. Watching him trying to rebounds is hard to watch…

by warriorfan4life on Dec 2, 2008 12:46 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I voted both...

I like both these guys, and I think they’re both showing a lot of promise. I think AR has looked great during moments (the 2nd half of the Chicago game— despite the flubbed dunk at the end), and certainly Wright was very efficient last night.

I think Monta, Morrow, Randolph, Wright, and Beans would make for an exciting and successful starting five in ~ 3 years.

We need to rid ourselves of the Captain Jacks and Maggettes of the world tho

by Mullin's Flattop on Dec 2, 2008 11:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I’d like to keep them both, but if I could only keep one, it would be Randolph.

As others have said, they’re pretty close. The main reason I’d go with Randolph is because with the extra year in the league and with the team, Wright should be further ahead of Randolph instead of neck-and-neck.

My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman

by Goofus on Dec 3, 2008 12:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

we’ll kow about randolph next year. He could be like andris and improve, work hard… develop a better midranger etc. The kid has alot of talent and could be a tashaun prince/younger-KG hybrid (i realize thats a FAR stretch im simply talking style of play) , but reality is he’s only going to go as far as his work ethic takes him. We all remember kobe, lebron when they came into league. now compare them to now. I could site a million players like that really…. I think worst case randolph turns into a poor mans rashard lewis. What i have seen from him, intangible wise… i think he has it in him to be a top teir player 1 day, but like i said we’ll know next season… after an off season see how hard he works, what happens..
what i want to see is nellie play him more at 3. cut back buke’s minutes for christ sake. Get him 7-8 mins at 3 and 7-8 at 4. His D and energy level alone make him worth it.

for wright, I like him alot. But i’d trade him for the right player. He has skills, he needs more time. Maybe him + randolph + biedrins could develop to a top teir front court….. or maybe not…. it could also be like a memphis where the have high potential guys who r always building for future, never transgressing.

persoanlly i want magette traded to a contender. I like mags alot but i hate the signing simply cause we dont need 4 swing players making 10 mil a year. He also eats at potential minutes for the young guys….

by Warriors510 on Dec 4, 2008 10:09 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

The coach is the problem

for either of the 2 rooks simply because he will never develop them and only plays that as much as he does presently because he literally has no one else tall enough to play there. Get a new coach with a new offensive system as well as overall team outlook, and I guarantee all this raw “potential” we keep hearing about will become a past-tense description of the two kids

by egypt on Dec 5, 2008 6:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Keep Both and DO THIS

Starting lineup against Any Team:
1 Crawford
2 Jackson
3 Randolph
4 Wright
5 Beidrins

2nd unit

1 CJ/Marco
2 Buike/Morrow
3 magette….
4 Kurz
5 Turiaf

by AlbinoWhale on Dec 5, 2008 9:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

A bench player

cannot be getting paid 10 million a year…. you just cannot have magette coming off the bench making that much money

by egypt on Dec 7, 2008 3:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

....

well we got 4 players making it who play same position.. 1 will have to go to bench

by Warriors510 on Dec 7, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

therein

lies the ineptness of the people that run this franchise… we are the modern-day version of the Knicks when they had over 6 PF’s on the same roster… except we have guards and more guards and none of which know how to be a point guard

by egypt on Dec 7, 2008 10:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

keep both

drop Nelson. Let Smart head coach, and he’d develop the talent of both, Wright as a threat offensively and defensively, and AR as a creator. Sure it’d take a year or two but I can see some progress this season

...never a fairweather fan...

by BayBoyNLA on Dec 7, 2008 3:39 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Start posting about the Warriors »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

We_re_back__small
Terms of Service and Moderation on GSoM...
Small
Five Good Things So Far
484214594_82b6b3554a_small
The Warriors as Simpsons
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Live-Tweeting from Row 8!!! (GSoM's Charity Auction seats)

Recent FanPosts

Small
Help Fire Don Nelson By Signing Petition
Follett_small
The Golden State Warriors players have already given up on Don Nelson
Photo-225x300_small
On Mikki Moore, Anthony Randolph, and 'Done' Nelson
Oaklandathletics_small
facebook Members: Keep the A's in OAKLAND
Small
They're bad
Clipsnation_small
Attention SoCal Dubs Fans
Small
Why Wright's injury could help the team
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Need extras in a basketball-related Doritos commercial
Small
Time to get someone to listen (ala Cleveland Browns)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

GSoM Motto

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

Golden State Warriors 2k9-2k10 Super Preview Blowout Special!


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

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

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

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

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Chef_randolph_gs_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae