lipoli390 wrote:Some good discussion. Maybe Austin Rivers fits the mold I'm thinking of. But like Cool I wish we had a PJ Tucker or Bobby Portis type. I don't think we have that sort of player on the roster now, but I could be wrong. I always liked JJ Barea as one of those tough, nasty guys you like to have on your team. I could have envisioned Cousins in that role.
Portis was a guy looking for a culture. An acceptance. I think we might be able to get that with Ant. KAT is not that guy.
I don't think we want that responsibility falling on our star, Edwards. Back in the day, Michael Jordan had Charles Oakley and later Bill Cartwright. Later in the Bulls run, Jordan had Rodman.
But they either got it or they don't. Edwards seems to have it. Beverley had it, I viewed him and Prince as a nice ying-yang leadership type. It's the "fuck you, this is me attitude. I'm comfortable, and confident."
TOC kind of proved that too with his trade.
I am not overly happy with our new ownership duo, but also I still hate Glen Taylor because having KG even having a semblance of existence in the organization would have been a good thing.
It's worth remembering that Jordan had to go through the Pistons...literally.
That physicality was no joke. They had the types you usually only see in hockey. Go out there and hurt somebody, send a message. And it was all of them.
lipoli390 wrote:I like nice guys. But I've always thought the Wolves have had too many nice guys and not nearly enough mental toughness or nastiness on their roster over the years. Last season seemed like a turning point in that regard. Adding Pat Beverley changed the culture with his in-your-face aggressive style and nasty edge. His attitude was infectious. And I also thought Vando and Beasley had some nastiness in their games as well. But all three are now gone.
Connelly seems like a really nice guy and it seems to me he's shaping the roster in his own image as he attempts to forge a team culture - something he values highly. But as I look at this roster now, I wonder if once again this team is gong to be too nice and lack the requisite mental toughness and nasty edge I believe championship caliber NBA teams need. We know KAT is soft or certainly not mentally tough or nasty. DLO isn't as soft as KAT but I don't consider him mentally tough or nasty. I think Edwards is mentally tough, but I don't see any nasty in his game and I don't think, as our best player, that he should be responsible for providing what I'm talking about.
So who on this team will provide the mental toughness a championship caliber NBA team needs? Who will provide that degree of nasty that's often necessary?
Thoughts?
I think Gobert is a nice guy but he isn't one on the court.
Austin Rivers ain't a happy go lucky dude.
Knight plays with an edge.
McDaniels has some edge too him.
One of the ways for the Wolves to get more tough and nasty is that they have upped at every position except PG by adding Gobert and pushing players up a position.
Knight plays with an edge? I guess you think Bambi and the Pillsbury doh-boy have one too. Knight is the prototypical Wolves nice guy.
How does a guy like you describe draw 7-8 FTA per 36?
Causing 7-8 FTA per 36 would be more indicative of a guy who plays with an edge.
He actually does that too. He led the team in foul rate and consistently put guys on the line. In fact, that might be one reason he hasn't leapfrogged into a regular NBA rotation - he fouls too damn much. He's also a ferocious dunker. I'm kinda neutral on the guy due to overall talent questions, but I certainly don't consider him soft.
Not saying he's soft but he's not a fox hole type of guy by any stretch. Ultimately he won't get enough minutes for it to matter.
You absolutely did say he was soft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I called him a nice guy.
Q-was-here wrote:The beauty of Portis and Tucker is that not only are they tough, intense competitors, but they are actually good players too. They know their role and do it really well. Rivers may have an edge, but he just isn't good enough to make that much of a difference. He's a replacement level role player whereas Tucker and Portis are legit top 7 or 8 championship rotation guys.
I think one of the trademarks of these "foxhole" type guys is that they push the envelope in terms of physicality without being in constant foul trouble. In other words, they are essentially fouling all the time but have somehow duped the officials into only calling the most egregious offenses. Draymond Green and PJ Tucker have absolutely mastered this craft.
Yeah, I can't believe what Tucker gets away with. He sets a standard for physicality and forces the officials to adjust to that standard. They might call one foul, but then let similar contact go uncalled. Jaden McDaniels gets away with absolutely nothing. It seems the officials go out of their way to call fouls on him. That needs to change.
Q-was-here wrote:The beauty of Portis and Tucker is that not only are they tough, intense competitors, but they are actually good players too. They know their role and do it really well. Rivers may have an edge, but he just isn't good enough to make that much of a difference. He's a replacement level role player whereas Tucker and Portis are legit top 7 or 8 championship rotation guys.
I think one of the trademarks of these "foxhole" type guys is that they push the envelope in terms of physicality without being in constant foul trouble. In other words, they are essentially fouling all the time but have somehow duped the officials into only calling the most egregious offenses. Draymond Green and PJ Tucker have absolutely mastered this craft.
Yeah, I can't believe what Tucker gets away with. He sets a standard for physicality and forces the officials to adjust to that standard. They might call one foul, but then let similar contact go uncalled. Jaden McDaniels gets away with absolutely nothing. It seems the officials go out of their way to call fouls on him. That needs to change.
It is an odd sort of nepotism. Until you're in, you're out.
monsterpile wrote:You absolutely did say he was soft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I called him a nice guy.
We're splitting hairs here. You certainly insinuated that Nathan Knight was the opposite of a tough guy or a player who plays with an edge. The Bambi and Pillsbury Doughboy references attest to that. It's not a fair criticism of Knight, in my opinion, but to each their own.
In any event, it doesn't matter if the 15th man -- which is what Knight is -- has Bill Laimbeer level intimidation or grit to his game. It's unlikely he'll be on the floor in any meaningful manner, and if he is, then something has gone terribly wrong and it wouldn't matter anyways.
monsterpile wrote:You absolutely did say he was soft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I called him a nice guy.
We're splitting hairs here. You certainly insinuated that Nathan Knight was the opposite of a tough guy or a player who plays with an edge. The Bambi and Pillsbury Doughboy references attest to that. It's not a fair criticism of Knight, in my opinion, but to each their own.
In any event, it doesn't matter if the 15th man -- which is what Knight is -- has Bill Laimbeer level intimidation or grit to his game. It's unlikely he'll be on the floor in any meaningful manner, and if he is, then something has gone terribly wrong and it wouldn't matter anyways.
Yeah, if Rivers and Knight are our two edgiest players, it's nice to have but not real meaningful when it comes to making a big playoff push.
I think Prince in theory could be a tough guy role player, but unfortunately he's just not a great defender yet. He's a notch or two below the Tucker/Crowder tier of 'tweener forwards. May be he can keep maturing into the 3&D role off the bench, as he isn't that old yet, but the "D" isn't there yet.
monsterpile wrote:You absolutely did say he was soft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I called him a nice guy.
We're splitting hairs here. You certainly insinuated that Nathan Knight was the opposite of a tough guy or a player who plays with an edge. The Bambi and Pillsbury Doughboy references attest to that. It's not a fair criticism of Knight, in my opinion, but to each their own.
In any event, it doesn't matter if the 15th man -- which is what Knight is -- has Bill Laimbeer level intimidation or grit to his game. It's unlikely he'll be on the floor in any meaningful manner, and if he is, then something has gone terribly wrong and it wouldn't matter anyways
I think we have a fine mix, we don't have any instigators anymore but still have multiple players who will fight back if they are challenged. I'm with Cam on Rudy gobert, even if he was a mute his presence is more intimidating on the court than most of these so-called tough guys.
BloopOracle wrote:I think we have a fine mix, we don't have any instigators anymore but still have multiple players who will fight back if they are challenged. I'm with Cam on Rudy gobert, even if he was a mute his presence is more intimidating on the court than most of these so-called tough guys.
Hard to disagree with that.
The guy makes world class athletes second guess if they can score around him.
