Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:For what it's worth, this is what D'Angelo Russell had to say about playing multiple positions, alluding to FNG's comment above.

Russell feels equally comfortable playing either guard spot, but noted the relative ease he felt playing off the ball.

"It's easier. I like the ability to be able to do both jobs," he said. "But playing off the ball I feel like you have one job and that's to play-make on the offensive end. On the defensive end, definitely guard your position. But on the offensive end, just play make, and I feel like that's my strength instead of coming up across half-court with the ball in my hands and setting up guys -- and then when the ball comes back making plays.

"It's vice versa, when you off the ball as soon as you get it you can make those plays and attack the defense. So it's definitely easier, but wherever I'm at, I feel I can make it work."

These comments were answers to questions when he joined the Golden State Warriors and the media wondered how he would fit with Steph Curry. I wonder if the fifth starter decision will be influenced by Russell's feelings on the matter. Does he want to be the full-time ball-handler? Or does he feel like he can be better at the two where he can prioritize scoring and making quick reads versus running constant action like a more traditional point guard such as Ricky Rubio.

Yes. A young guy like Russell is much more likely to accept a lesser role on a championship club with a two-time MVP... vs. compromising his game for a middle-of-the-road starting PG.

I see many red flags with Russell. But we'll see where it goes.

Hopefully, the talent is so abundant, that it overwhelms everything else that can derail these types of situations.

I think the Rubio/DLO tension is a bit paranoid on Britt's part. If Rubio were more of a scorer in the modern day PG sense, I could see more overlap there. But it seems perfectly complementary to have Rubio bring the ball up, then ultimately run a set where DLO is the one taking the shot or running PnR. Rubio generally plays in service to others

Having said that, I also see Rubio in the game whenever DLO is sitting, so they aren't going to overlap a ton of minutes together anyway since Rubio will be the backup PG and McLaughlin (or someone else) being a 3rd string PG that is only used in garbage time or due to injury.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:One thing to consider...

A second unit with Culver, Okogie, Rubio and possibly even Davis is going to struggle mightily to score.

It will be interesting though to see how the various lineups pan out. There seems to be a definite logjam at various spots. One thing that the Wolves seem to always struggle with... the best talent may not be the best fit all the time.

You can't have too many guys looking to "get theirs" at the same time. Rubio will go a long way to help alleviate that... but he can only do so much.




[Note: Even if Edwards hits HUGE. That's an issue for this team moving forward. What happens, sometimes, is that the guy who needs to have the ball passed to him takes the hit. And that would be bad for the Wolves. Towns has proven to be the most efficient shooting big whether on many touches or only a few. He should never be the guy compromising on the offensive end.]

This is why Britt Robson says his theory is Russell will be the one traded especially if Edwards hits even to some extent. Britt suggests it's going to be VERY interesting to see how all these guys handle playing time their usage etc. Does someone get upset with their role? Russell was supposed to be the guy here and now wonder boy Rubio is back will Russell embrace that? Britt also pointed out He wants to see Towns play with the ball more like we saw early last season. The one positive is that Beasley isn't really a guy that needs to have the ball all that much to do his thing which is make outside shots and play in transition. I'm not sure I agree with all of the takes Britt had in the podcast (He actually called his theory on Russell a conspiracy theory lol) with Dane Moore but he makes some points worth considering in pondering this roster as the season unfolds.

Get ready for a bumpy ride:

Rubio is an analytics darling... as we're all aware.
And there are hints that Russell comes from the DeRozan/Westbrook mold of "but he's a net negative on the court!" hot takes.

But all of this comes back to team chemistry. The "disease of more" doesn't just happen on championship teams. It happens on young bad teams with guys looking to get theirs, too. It's why having three really good young players on the same "timeline" can be so dicey. Which one willingly takes the backseat?

I'm officially kicking a dead horse now, but that's why I dug a trade down to land another starter and a guy like Haliburton who would willingly just do his job.

If you're paying Russell and Towns $60M combined and they're not capable of leading a team -- you made a terrible mistake bringing them to the team in the first place at that price point.

We like Halliburton so regardless we would have liked to end up with him but as the co-captain with you on Team Trade Down, I'm not sure getting another starter AND Halliburton was gonna be on the table. We probably won't ever know for sure what offers were or weren't made for #1.

I think it's interesting to think that Russell and how he handles things might be more of a factor in how things work or don't work The next year or 2 than any other player on the roster maybe including Towns who will get some leeway from people for a while still because he lost his mother. Russell obviously doesn't have a sterling rep but I'm interested to see if he is more wise now than people give him credit for. I think he MIGHT be but skepticism has a lot more to go on than optimism that's for sure.

monsterpile wrote:

60WinTim wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Other than Robert Covington, this team is literally incapable of finding or developing someone that can both play defense and shoot the 3. It would almost be a violation of the laws of nature for this to happen....ESPECIALLY with someone we have drafted.

So with my Wolves' interest re-kindled, I had to restart my Athletic subscription again so I could read articles by Jon, Britt, et al. One of Britt's observations is that the starting duo of Kat and RoCo (RoCo at the 4) was terrible last year, but that the Kat and Layman (Layman at the 4) was pretty darn good. I'm not exactly sure how to process that information as of yet. Sample size is a factor I am sure. But just sayin'...

Idk if Britt said it in his article but he mentioned in the podcast with Dane Moore that Layman's Defensive rating held up even when he returned from the toe injury. Both Britt and Dane were much higher in Layman having a role on this team than most posters here. If Britt praises a guy on defense that's not something he gives out too much and he was complimentary of Layman's D last year. He also said he was somewhat surprised how bad Beasley was on defense for the Wolves because he thought looking back at some tape of him in Denver he thought he wasn't terrible.

Yeah, Layman may be getting overlooked by us a bit. He had the best net rating on the team over a 23-game sample. Not bad. He also had one of the best defensive ratings on the team, as Britt mentioned.

So I looked back at his Portland season to see how things looked with more data. He was pretty much middle of the road relative to his team mates in terms of both defensive rating and overall net rating (+2.0 overall).

When you look at the advanced defensive metrics that try to take out the noise of playing with four others on the floor (REALLY hard to do!) like D-PIPM and D-RPM, he's again middle of the road - not great, but not bad.

Bottom-line: Layman is a neutral to positive presence when out there with other talented players. He's not good enough to be a main cog in winning games (despite what the data said from last season).

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:One thing to consider...

A second unit with Culver, Okogie, Rubio and possibly even Davis is going to struggle mightily to score.

It will be interesting though to see how the various lineups pan out. There seems to be a definite logjam at various spots. One thing that the Wolves seem to always struggle with... the best talent may not be the best fit all the time.

You can't have too many guys looking to "get theirs" at the same time. Rubio will go a long way to help alleviate that... but he can only do so much.




[Note: Even if Edwards hits HUGE. That's an issue for this team moving forward. What happens, sometimes, is that the guy who needs to have the ball passed to him takes the hit. And that would be bad for the Wolves. Towns has proven to be the most efficient shooting big whether on many touches or only a few. He should never be the guy compromising on the offensive end.]

This is why Britt Robson says his theory is Russell will be the one traded especially if Edwards hits even to some extent. Britt suggests it's going to be VERY interesting to see how all these guys handle playing time their usage etc. Does someone get upset with their role? Russell was supposed to be the guy here and now wonder boy Rubio is back will Russell embrace that? Britt also pointed out He wants to see Towns play with the ball more like we saw early last season. The one positive is that Beasley isn't really a guy that needs to have the ball all that much to do his thing which is make outside shots and play in transition. I'm not sure I agree with all of the takes Britt had in the podcast (He actually called his theory on Russell a conspiracy theory lol) with Dane Moore but he makes some points worth considering in pondering this roster as the season unfolds.

Get ready for a bumpy ride:

Rubio is an analytics darling... as we're all aware.
And there are hints that Russell comes from the DeRozan/Westbrook mold of "but he's a net negative on the court!" hot takes.

But all of this comes back to team chemistry. The "disease of more" doesn't just happen on championship teams. It happens on young bad teams with guys looking to get theirs, too. It's why having three really good young players on the same "timeline" can be so dicey. Which one willingly takes the backseat?

I'm officially kicking a dead horse now, but that's why I dug a trade down to land another starter and a guy like Haliburton who would willingly just do his job.

If you're paying Russell and Towns $60M combined and they're not capable of leading a team -- you made a terrible mistake bringing them to the team in the first place at that price point.

We like Halliburton so regardless we would have liked to end up with him but as the co-captain with you on Team Trade Down, I'm not sure getting another starter AND Halliburton was gonna be on the table. We probably won't ever know for sure what offers were or weren't made for #1.

I think it's interesting to think that Russell and how he handles things might be more of a factor in how things work or don't work The next year or 2 than any other player on the roster maybe including Towns who will get some leeway from people for a while still because he lost his mother. Russell obviously doesn't have a sterling rep but I'm interested to see if he is more wise now than people give him credit for. I think he MIGHT be but skepticism has a lot more to go on than optimism that's for sure.

True. We don't know what was on the table in any of the 10 or so offers. So many rumors were flying around.

But we've heard (true or not) that Carter and the #4 was offered for the #2, so I've been using that as a hypothetical comp, whether accurate or not. But it doesn't seem like Carter fits the Rosas system. And I could see why a guy like Bridges (rumored) would just be part of the jumbled mess on the wings.

A lot of does depend on Russell. We'll see.

As for Towns, (treading lightly here because we all grieve differently), but he should be able to move on from his mother's death to play very good basketball this season. Overcoming hardships is often used as a positive when people analyze athletes.

It's been said on here already, especially by me, but if you trade D'Angelo Russell you're likely trading Karl-Anthony Towns as well. If the plan is to blow it up entirely, then I get it. But if the plan is to move Russell and try to find someone that is better and will compliment Towns on and off the court, then I don't agree nor understand the thought process. Towns would very likely request a trade the minute Russell was shipped out. The Wolves have to be savvy enough to make this duo work or be prepared to rebuild with parts, specifically around Anthony Edwards. That's the situation.

Camden0916 wrote:It's been said on here already, especially by me, but if you trade D'Angelo Russell you're likely trading Karl-Anthony Towns as well. If the plan is to blow it up entirely, then I get it. But if the plan is to move Russell and try to find someone that is better and will compliment Towns on and off the court, then I don't agree nor understand the thought process. Towns would very likely request a trade the minute Russell was shipped out. The Wolves have to be savvy enough to make this duo work or be prepared to rebuild with parts, specifically around Anthony Edwards. That's the situation.

I think the idea Britt Robson has in trading Russell was based on a few possible outcomes.

1. It wasn't working Russell wasn't happy and Rubio was good enough to make Russell expendable.

2. Anthony Edwards blows up and is the high usage guy you give the ball to a lot making Russell not a guy that makes sense.

3. Russell is an asset to being in a bigger star.

So Britt's idea of moving Russell isn't particulate soon. I'm not looking to push Russell out anytime soon that's for sure I'm intrigued with how he might work with everyone on this roster. Keep in mind how many high level guards the Nets had when Russell was there. Sure there was a number of games they did play because of injury but...that could happen here too.

monsterpile wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:It's been said on here already, especially by me, but if you trade D'Angelo Russell you're likely trading Karl-Anthony Towns as well. If the plan is to blow it up entirely, then I get it. But if the plan is to move Russell and try to find someone that is better and will compliment Towns on and off the court, then I don't agree nor understand the thought process. Towns would very likely request a trade the minute Russell was shipped out. The Wolves have to be savvy enough to make this duo work or be prepared to rebuild with parts, specifically around Anthony Edwards. That's the situation.

I think the idea Britt Robson has in trading Russell was based on a few possible outcomes.

1. It wasn't working Russell wasn't happy and Rubio was good enough to make Russell expendable.

2. Anthony Edwards blows up and is the high usage guy you give the ball to a lot making Russell not a guy that makes sense.

3. Russell is an asset to being in a bigger star.

So Britt's idea of moving Russell isn't particulate soon. I'm not looking to push Russell out anytime soon that's for sure I'm intrigued with how he might work with everyone on this roster. Keep in mind how many high level guards the Nets had when Russell was there. Sure there was a number of games they did play because of injury but...that could happen here too.

These are interesting situations, sure, but I don't see why D'Angelo Russell would be on his way out in any of them. Britt Robson comes up with some wacky takes and this one is no different.

1. If by some chance the Russell and Ricky Rubio pairing didn't work out, then you boot the veteran on a two-year deal and continue to build around the 24-year old as he's more of a long-term piece. And I'm not sure what Rubio could do this year that would make him a better player than Russell.

2. If Anthony Edwards blows up and becomes the star player that he's capable of being, then he'll be able to impact the game on-ball and off-ball. There isn't a star in the game that doesn't provide value away from the rock. Russell, comparatively, is a guy that can operate without the ball and knock down perimeter shots. Along with Karl-Anthony Towns and Malik Beasley, Russell's ability to space the floor and require defensive attention would only benefit Edwards and his slashing ability. So, once again, what?

3. Russell could certainly be used as a piece in a bigger trade, but I'd bet that the Wolves' brass is far more interested in adding a third star instead of upgrading one of their two known commodities. And in that case the main trade piece would be Edwards -- unless he establishes himself as a young star in which case the Wolves probably don't need to make such a trade anyways.

Dane Moore's podcast with Britt Robson is a great discussion, definitely recommend it. The most interesting debate is the Rubio vs James Johnson discussion. Britt argues that the Wolves gave away their $16 mil expiring chip in JJ to pair with Culver and #1 to get a pretty good player. Dane argues Rubio fits the trade timeline better, basically extending the same chip who you could trade with Edwards and 3 #1s next offseason should a superstar become available. Both make good points but I fall more on the Moore stance on that discussion. That said, they also discuss how Rubio replicates a lot of what they would have been looking at with Ball. There was a question whether DLo would be okay moving aside from the primary duties for Ball and by extension Rubio. I think the Wolves get the best of both worlds in that Rubio looks at himself as being a piece to make his teammates better and is a net positive player. For Ball, he looks at himself as "the man" and now you have to worry more about egos in the room, and in addition we don't know that he's a net positive player (and probably isn't to begin with). They did comment that adding Rubio muddies up the smalls while getting rid of a big (JJ), which was before the FA signings (Ed Davis specifically). They also brought up the point that for every second a ball handler can speed up initiating the offense, is equal to +1 in offensive net rating, and Rubio excels in this.

The thing I think they missed is that Rubio makes his teammates better. He's done it at every stop, and I know a lot of people think that Edwards value goes down after he's drafted, but I think if he plays with Rubio, his value will be as high as possible...Case in point, Derrick Williams or Shabazz Muhammad. Both looked solid when Rubio was getting them easy looks, both looked like G-Leaguers when they weren't with Ricky. So if Edwards (or anyone else) is going to be in future trade talks, it might be good to keep him with Rubio.

The Layman stuff was also interesting, as noted on this board, that Britt brought up. Basically calling him a poor man's RoCo who moves well with his feet and knows where to be, but doesn't have RoCo's hands. He also mentioned an interesting stat that Layman is in the 97% percentile in the NBA in deflections, which is pretty impressive.

The reason I'm kind of excited about this season is because I feel like there are a lot of guys who could surprise this year. Extended offseason, lots of new parts that haven't played together. Vanderbilt, Edwards, Rubio with Beasley/Edwards/DLoading, etc. Hopefully one of these guys makes a major jump and we have something really to build off of.

God I hope Edwards blows up because then we have a dynamic backcourt to build around in Russell and Edwards and Towns gets to reap the benefits of playing off those 2 guys. Then if the defense doesn't cut it you have Towns as the trade chip to get a massive haul of wings and bigs to fill in around those 2 guys rather than selling early on Edwards with Ricky to get someone around Russell/Towns. Also I wouldn't be opposed to Layman starting at the 4 if he can hold his own defensively next to Towns.