Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

To be fair... the Thunder team in 2010 had 3 of arguably the top 5 players in the league in 2016. Young or not... that's some serious talent.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

To be fair... the Thunder team in 2010 had 3 of arguably the top 5 players in the league in 2016. Young or not... that's some serious talent.

Yeah, those 3 are great now, but they were young and inexperienced in 2009-10, and not all that effective (as young players sometimes aren't). Durant was great, but Westbrook and Harden's PERs were a rather average 17.9 and 14.1. Just like the Wolves, they were a team with 3 guys with great potential in their first three years and very few reliable vets. But unlike the Wolves, they won.

I get that they weren't what they are now. I'm just saying that's 3 uber talented guys. You don't get to being a top 5 player without knowing what you're doing.

Durant averaged 30+.

Jeff Green was even promising back then. This isn't to discount the Wolves struggles. Yes, it's been alarming. Just wanted to point out how much talent was on that team, young and inexperienced or not.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I get that they weren't what they are now. I'm just saying that's 3 uber talented guys. You don't get to being a top 5 player without knowing what you're doing.

Durant averaged 30+.

Jeff Green was even promising back then. This isn't to discount the Wolves struggles. Yes, it's been alarming. Just wanted to point out how much talent was on that team, young and inexperienced or not.

Agree, you don't win 50 without talent. But it looks like the Wolves are going to win half that many, and with 2 #1 picks plus LaVine and 7 other lottery picks on our roster, I have a difficult time concluding that we only have half the talent OkC had. Ultimately I thought they overachieved with so many young players (remember Green was only in his third year also), and the Wolves have begun the season horribly underachieving.

And no, I won't be patient :furious: !

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

How about other young team 98-99 Boston Celtics with all star Antoine Walker and previous year all rookie 1st team member Ron Mercer and rookie Paul Pierce? They had record 36-46 in previous season. Then in next lockout shortened season same team with same coach ended with worse record 19-31 (about same win% than 31-51 record in 82 game season) and most remarkable roster change was addition of Paul Pierce. Does that mean that Paul Pierce was so horrible player as a rookie that made team worse? Of course not, it just tells that young players are not always improving linearly and sometimes they even get worse. Or 95-99 Dallas Mavericks? They also had record 36-46 in previous season. They had previous year rookie of the year, Jason Kidd and two young dynamic scorers Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn in their roster but still they ended with clearly worse record than previous year (26-56) without coaching change.

Mikkeman wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

How about other young team 98-99 Boston Celtics with all star Antoine Walker and previous year all rookie 1st team member Ron Mercer and rookie Paul Pierce? They had record 36-46 in previous season. Then in next lockout shortened season same team with same coach ended with worse record 19-31 (about same win% than 31-51 record in 82 game season) and most remarkable roster change was addition of Paul Pierce. Does that mean that Paul Pierce was so horrible player as a rookie that made team worse? Of course not, it just tells that young players are not always improving linearly and sometimes they even get worse. Or 95-99 Dallas Mavericks? They also had record 36-46 in previous season. They had previous year rookie of the year, Jason Kidd and two young dynamic scorers Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn in their roster but still they ended with clearly worse record than previous year (26-56) without coaching change.

I really hope Boston is not a good comparison, mikkeman. First of all, I throw out Pierce, because we know that rookies seldom help out much (cough, cough...Dunn). Further, if KAT/Wig/Zach only turn out to be Antoine Walker and Ron Mercer, I think most of us here would be quite disappointed.

Mikkeman wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

How about other young team 98-99 Boston Celtics with all star Antoine Walker and previous year all rookie 1st team member Ron Mercer and rookie Paul Pierce? They had record 36-46 in previous season. Then in next lockout shortened season same team with same coach ended with worse record 19-31 (about same win% than 31-51 record in 82 game season) and most remarkable roster change was addition of Paul Pierce. Does that mean that Paul Pierce was so horrible player as a rookie that made team worse? Of course not, it just tells that young players are not always improving linearly and sometimes they even get worse. Or 95-99 Dallas Mavericks? They also had record 36-46 in previous season. They had previous year rookie of the year, Jason Kidd and two young dynamic scorers Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn in their roster but still they ended with clearly worse record than previous year (26-56) without coaching change.

As for the Mavericks... that's not the model for these young Wolves guys to follow.

Wasn't that the team that imploded over Toni Braxton's affections?

longstrangetrip wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:

Camden wrote:It's been said already, and I'll say it when I see this Fizdale/Thibodeau topic arise, but the comparison between Memphis and Minnesota is invalid and the primary reason is veteran production/leadership. We do not have Marc Gasol, Tony Allen, and Zach Randolph. They simply aren't mentors from the sideline. They're on the floor impacting the game with their play first, and with their knowledge/experience second. Those three and Conley (injured) are the cogs of that Grit & Grind machine that churns out playoff berths year after year. The pieces around those guys, however unimpressive they are, are for the most part interchangeable and the reason is because the veterans make weaker players play better on the floor.

Well, would you agree that the 09-10 Thunder is a good comparison then? They were arguably younger than this year's Wolves with 4 of their top 5 players in minutes played still in their first three years and the 5th (Sefolosha) only in his 4th year. There were no vets on that team better than the vets the Wolves have, but a positive young coach led that younger team to 50 wins! That's why every poster on this board predicted the Wolves would win more than 40 games this year...because we recognized that future stars often make a big leap forward in their 2nd and 3rd years. The Wolves are currently on a pace to win 22 games, and that is a complete travesty given the talent level Thibs has to work with.

How about other young team 98-99 Boston Celtics with all star Antoine Walker and previous year all rookie 1st team member Ron Mercer and rookie Paul Pierce? They had record 36-46 in previous season. Then in next lockout shortened season same team with same coach ended with worse record 19-31 (about same win% than 31-51 record in 82 game season) and most remarkable roster change was addition of Paul Pierce. Does that mean that Paul Pierce was so horrible player as a rookie that made team worse? Of course not, it just tells that young players are not always improving linearly and sometimes they even get worse. Or 95-99 Dallas Mavericks? They also had record 36-46 in previous season. They had previous year rookie of the year, Jason Kidd and two young dynamic scorers Jimmy Jackson and Jamal Mashburn in their roster but still they ended with clearly worse record than previous year (26-56) without coaching change.

I really hope Boston is not a good comparison, mikkeman. First of all, I throw out Pierce, because we know that rookies seldom help out much (cough, cough...Dunn). Further, if KAT/Wig/Zach only turn out to be Antoine Walker and Ron Mercer, I think most of us here would be quite disappointed.

Antoine Walker winning a ring... while playing the 2nd most minutes on the team in the Finals... is one of life's greatest mysteries.

That team had Jason Williams too! What? WHAT???

Mstermisty wrote:I think you can be 100% behind Thibs and yet still question whether his coaching style or some strategic decisions he's made have been good for this young team. Those two thoughts can co-exist 26 games into a season that has started 7-19.

By the end of the season it should be more apparent what the true Thibs affect is. We are clearly a better team on paper this year and most "experts" predicted we would win about half our games. If we don't come anywhere close to this, without major injuries, and possibly win less games than last year, then the only logical conclusion is Thibs didn't get it done. Regardless, he'll get a second year to right the ship anyway (maybe trade for the guys he wants), so might as well get used to that growl on the sidelines because it's going to be here for a while.

You captured my sentiments exactly.