Minnesota Sports Forum

KG4Ever wrote:Why do we want Teague to start? I just see no upside to it, even if he's our best point guard. I don't want to see the Thibs approach where we sacrifice the future to try to eek out a few more wins and sneak in as an 8th seed at the expense of not developing younger talent. I'd rather see Tyus (if we keep him) or Culver as the starting point guard.

There's a weird theory on sports forums that you can only develop as a player if you're starting or playing "XX" amount of minutes. I'm not sure where that came from or who started it, but it's nonsense.

Imagine using that same methodology and saying that the Wolves should bench Robert Covington so that Jake Layman or Keita Bates-Dion can develop. It just doesn't make sense and honestly is a really bad look for the team.

You could also make the argument that starting the lesser of your point guard options (someone other than Teague in this case) would hinder the development of your other young players. This is why Phoenix went out and got Rubio IMO. It takes a lot of playmaking burden off Booker and Ayton while still getting them their shots.

I'm not a big Teague fan, but at this point he is our best option to start at PG.

Camden0916 wrote:

KG4Ever wrote:Why do we want Teague to start? I just see no upside to it, even if he's our best point guard. I don't want to see the Thibs approach where we sacrifice the future to try to eek out a few more wins and sneak in as an 8th seed at the expense of not developing younger talent. I'd rather see Tyus (if we keep him) or Culver as the starting point guard.

There's a weird theory on sports forums that you can only develop as a player if you're starting or playing "XX" amount of minutes. I'm not sure where that came from or who started it, but it's nonsense.

Imagine using that same methodology and saying that the Wolves should bench Robert Covington so that Jake Layman or Keita Bates-Dion can develop. It just doesn't make sense and honestly is a really bad look for the team.

There's this weird theory on sports forums that you can just not play or play a little bit and then just become good against NBA level players because you practiced hard. Who are these guys that just didn't play or played limited minutes and then all of a sudden became good NBA players? I don't agree to bench Teague because I don't think he's stifling anyone's development in this case, but who are these guys who have just ridden the bench and then become good NBA rotation players? A guy like Fred VanVleet for example. 8 MPG's his rookie year. Largely all bad. 20 minutes his sophomore year and he plays his best in Jan-Feb after he finally hits that 20 minute mark which opens the door for him to play 27 minutes this year. There's only so much you can improve in an open gym. At some point you have to play against real NBA players to continue to improve to their level. More rookies would just be good right off the bat if just working hard off the court fully translated to being good on the court at an NBA level. Almost every player would just be plug and play if you could become a quality NBA player without needing to actually play to get there.

Camden0916 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Jeremi Grant is a young vet that would be interesting as a depth guys'd cheap. Trey Burke is more of a bucket getter with likely poor defense but if these guys come for basically the vet min...sure. Both guys are combo guards not really PGs.

Jerami Grant would be our starting power forward if we acquired him, which honestly isn't a bad idea if the Thunder go full rebuild. Jerian Grant would be a solid third stringer, but I'd prefer Trey Burke.

Ugh stupid autocorrect helped me screw that up yeah Jerian was who I meant.