CoolBreeze44 wrote:Zach gets too much criticism on here. I see some real potential there, and it comes out in drips from time to time. Keep doing wihat you're doing Zach, you have all the time necessary.
Agreed. Lavine was literally thrown into the fire playing starting PG when he doesn't have much experience doing so. He didn't do too bad all things considered, yet he is seen in a bad light. I don't get it.
Other than Brit Robson, I'm not sure who are lumping into the "Zach gets too much criticism" group?
Zach's struggles have been acknowledged by most everyone with the caveat "he was thrown to the Wolves too soon". I don't recall many comments about being down on his future potential. Nothing like the beating Wiggins took for not producing in his first two months in the NBA like other #1s had produced over the course of an entire season...
60WinTim wrote:Other than Brit Robson, I'm not sure who are lumping into the "Zach gets too much criticism" group?
Zach's struggles have been acknowledged by most everyone with the caveat "he was thrown to the Wolves too soon". I don't recall many comments about being down on his future potential. Nothing like the beating Wiggins took for not producing in his first two months in the NBA like other #1s had produced over the course of an entire season...
[edit: and yes, i just kicked a dead horse! ;-) ]
I lump myself in that pool because I don't think there's anything there to develop and if Wiggins is our SG of the future, well Flip has egg on his face for the whole "Zach is a destination player" talk he had this summer.
I can give him credit whenever he has a good game, but he'll have one game every month where he doesn't suck and I gotta read the "see he'll be fine one day" stuff and all I can remember is us ripping Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson and Jonny Flynn for doing more than he has.
WildWolf2813 wrote:I can give him credit whenever he has a good game, but he'll have one game every month where he doesn't suck and I gotta read the "see he'll be fine one day" stuff and all I can remember is us ripping Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson and Jonny Flynn for doing more than he has.
Derrick Williams, WesJohnson and Jonny Flynn were older than Zach when they entered to this league. And I don't recall that they would have been ripped that badly during their rookie year. They were ripped a lot later because they were not improving at all. I think Zach will be ripped also badly in this board if he doesn't improve in future but personally I believe he will. He has all the tools to be great SG in this league and has a good work ethic. He is just raw and has been this season playing mainly as point gueard which isn't his real position in this league.
Nothing there to develop? If that is how you see it, what can anyone tell ya about Zach, your mind is made up already. You're just talking smack and not serious right?
Even if he winds up as a bust, that doesn't make your right. To think a first year player learning the offensive / defensive scheme's has nothing left to develop is plain ignorant. The future growth potential for him is equal to the amount of effort he puts into it.
WildWolf2813 wrote:
I lump myself in that pool because I don't think there's anything there to develop and if Wiggins is our SG of the future, well Flip has egg on his face for the whole "Zach is a destination player" talk he had this summer.
I can give him credit whenever he has a good game, but he'll have one game every month where he doesn't suck and I gotta read the "see he'll be fine one day" stuff and all I can remember is us ripping Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson and Jonny Flynn for doing more than he has.
You can't be serious. That might be the most ridiculous statement I've seen in the board all season if that's actually serious... Flynn was a PG, Wes was a Wing, Williams was a tweener. They were all older than Lavine and actually played a position they had experience with. Lavine was thrown into the PG role based on talent alone. He had little experience there and none in college. All the Lavine negativity is baffling to me.
WildWolf2813 wrote:
I lump myself in that pool because I don't think there's anything there to develop and if Wiggins is our SG of the future, well Flip has egg on his face for the whole "Zach is a destination player" talk he had this summer.
I can give him credit whenever he has a good game, but he'll have one game every month where he doesn't suck and I gotta read the "see he'll be fine one day" stuff and all I can remember is us ripping Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson and Jonny Flynn for doing more than he has.
You can't be serious. That might be the most ridiculous statement I've seen in the board all season if that's actually serious... Flynn was a PG, Wes was a Wing, Williams was a tweener. They were all older than Lavine and actually played a position they had experience with. Lavine was thrown into the PG role based on talent alone. He had little experience there and none in college. All the Lavine negativity is baffling to me.
Why is it baffling? He simply hasn't been good. Everyone understands the excuses for why he hasn't been good, but that doesn't mean we should just overlook how bad he has been in a role he shouldn't have played to begin with. If you're bad at your job because you don't have the skill set, should you be Scott free because you just don't have the skill set to do the job or is there some level of accountability for being bad at it regardless of the circumstances? I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes.
"I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes."
At the time of the Wiggins criticism, it wasn't just a slump. It was the entire season except for several games, though the sample size wasn't fantastic. Those who critiqued Wiggins were saying the same thing as you are now about LaVine. His long-term potential wasn't being negated. It was about his production on the court, or lack thereof. Seems a bit funny that you could be on both sides for different players, though I don't disagree with your views on LaVine. He hasn't been good.
camden0916 wrote:"I haven't seen anyone question his long-term potential, but at this point it is more than just a slump like it was for Wiggins only with a lot less flashes."
At the time of the Wiggins criticism, it wasn't just a slump. It was the entire season except for several games, though the sample size wasn't fantastic. Those who critiqued Wiggins were saying the same thing as you are now about LaVine. His long-term potential wasn't being negated. It was about his production on the court, or lack thereof. Seems a bit funny that you could be on both sides for different players, though I don't disagree with your views on LaVine. He hasn't been good.
Lavine has played what, 2 really good games out of 46 total. Wiggins had shown more than that in the 26 game sample size that was used for his example. Wiggins at no point in his slump was shown to statistically be the worst rotation player in the league either. There is a difference in my mind because Lavine has had more total games, fewer really good games than Wiggins had and Wiggins did it in almost half the sample size and for a while Lavine was statistically the worst rotation player in the league. That's what separates the two for me. Several games out of 26 is a much better percentage of good play than 2 out of 46.
