(09-01-2023, 03:07 PM)surfpuckmd Wrote: The offense seemed to be let Josh Giddy drive to the basket or have Patty Mills create offense.  Green was an afterthought.

He looked really active defensively as we would expect.

(09-01-2023, 03:16 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: You basically just described the Mavs offense and Josh's role in it as well.

I get confused by the expectations of Josh on this board and some of the folks here that I find quite knowledgeable saying they haven't been seeing Josh's progression.  I had written him off before the start of last season and I thought his game was night and day.  I think the overall failures of last season also hide the positive moments that Josh was having which is fair.  He's never going to be asked to generate his own offense on any meaningful possessions this season and the same goes for his role with Australia so I'm just not going to count on that.  He's continued to be less shy about his shot (which he can still get less shy about for sure) and makes an impact with his defense, movement off the ball and overall energy/athleticism on a somewhat unathletic roster.  He's basically Eddie Najera but at a completely different position.

(09-01-2023, 03:07 PM)surfpuckmd Wrote: I agree he hasn't had a good showing on offense.

However, I think it's difficult to draw conclusions based on FIBA play.  

Australia heavily featured Patty Mills and Josh Giddy offensively.  Giddy is understandable as he is really talented but they played Patty Mills as if he were Allen Iverson.  They also seem to have a hierarchy where their older vets play more minutes and get more shots-  especially Joe Ingles and Patty Mills.  

The offense seemed to be let Josh Giddy drive to the basket or have Patty Mills create offense.  Green was an afterthought.   He was also recovering from two separate injuries, I believe-  an ankle sprain and an elbow injury.

He looked really active defensively as we would expect.

I think Green played well for the Mavericks last season.  He is probably our best defensive player and he hit over 40% from 3.  The 3-point shooting improvement has been tremendous.  I think we're all hoping he can become more assertive offensively but the player he became last season has a lot of value for us.  With Luka, Kyrie, THJ and Hardy, we have a lot of guys who take a lot of shots.  I think we have a need for several good 3 and D players and Green is currently our best 3 and D.  The fact that he can handle the ball, pass and occasionally make some cuts to the basket I believe makes him a quality starter.  I expect him to become our 3rd-best player this coming season.  I hope they go ahead and extend him this summer.  I like the progression he has made over the past two seasons-  even if he didn't finish last season very well.

(09-01-2023, 05:26 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I'm with you on your overall point, and think the Najera comp does Green kind of a disservice. He's a glue guy, for sure, but a much better one than Najera was, imo. 

All I need to see from Green is one thing: he needs to let 100% of his open shots fly, without hesitation. I don't need him to aggressively SEEK OUT those shots, just to shoot them when the game comes to him. He's already impacting the game in transition (in both directions), on defense, as a ball-handler (where he's better than average), as a cutter and with his best attribute, which is passing. Not only does the ball not stick in his hands (you need a lot of guys like that) he's actually fairly intuitive at creating decent shot opportunities for others, which I found surprising. AND, once he learns to let those shots fly, there's reason to expect them to GO IN, because he has already turned himself into a decent catch-and-shoot guy, from what I've seen.

(09-01-2023, 05:36 PM)omahen Wrote: I think what you are describing is basically "a Bullock" in his good year. If Josh is "just" that, is he really so irreplaceable, not to be considered as possible to include in a trade? What if his value today is still higher than a value of a Bullock like player, because teams still value his potential? Wouldn't it make more sense to trade him now for a higher value than what he might ever be?

As for other guys, I have been saying for years, that THJ is not the right fit for this team and Mavs seem to agree. He takes a lot of shots, but his defense is not good enough to play next to Luka and Irving, imho. He is not bad defensively, just not good enough. He is also not a creator on offense to justify a scoring 6th man role, as his best games are coming playing next to Luka and feeding from his assists. Hardy has the potential to be more than that. So, if you take THJ out of equation, I think other players would need to step up and be more assertive offensively. Does Green have it in him? Or is he just a "5 shots per game" player? And if he is just a "5 shots per game" player, is he still a starter? Perhaps 5th best man, but certainly not 3rd best. 

Don't get me wrong. I am not pushing for a necessary trade. Just pointing out things that should be imho considered. I certainly don't have enough information. I am just wandering if he can ever become more than "a Bullock".

(09-01-2023, 06:08 PM)surfpuckmd Wrote: Josh Green is already a a better player than Reggie Bullock ever was.  Bullock's defense was always overrated.  He was a 3-point specialist who wasn't bad on defense at his peak.  This is a poor comparison.  

Josh is a good defensive player who is already a good 3-point shooter who can pass and cut and finish at the rim occasionally.  Reggie Bullock never had that versatility.

I don't think Josh Green is untouchable but he's a good player who fits this team.  I think the Mavericks need role players next to Kyrie and Luka.  Reggie Bullock was a decent contributor in his first year here then declined and became our worst rotation player last season.

(09-01-2023, 10:09 PM)The Jom Wrote: Crazy talk. Mavs don’t just need Josh Green. They need ANOTHER Josh Green. Someone who can hit open shots on offense but doesn’t need the ball. Someone who can defend the best opposing guard no matter size or speed. Somebody who can get out on the break and get easy baskets. Someone who brings energy. Someone who is a plus in the lockerroom. Someone who has no ego.

Closest comparison, a much taller Pat Beverly approaching his prime. Or Bruce Bowen in his championship days in San Antonio.

(09-01-2023, 09:12 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Mavs to the Kings:

(09-01-2023, 11:24 PM)F Gump Wrote: The Green idea is all about who we want him to be - but not about who he actually is. Not yet. (And who knows, maybe not ever?) At some point, if you keep showing the same sort of game, it's reasonable to just figure that's who you are. It's embarrassing to see people keep making excuses for him, frankly. At some point, if he's better than he's shown, then let's see it.

We see the building blocks that seem to indicate he has the ability to be productive, but we also keep seeing a lack of productivity. His Aussie games have been no better, and it's even a step below NBA competition.

He's sorta a good defender, but there are no steals or blocked shots or rebounds to speak of, things that end possessions. That limits his impact on the defensive end to activity and perhaps getting in the way of the offensive player. He's sorta a good shooter, but the ball rarely goes in the basket, which limits his impact on that end as well.

In concept he's 3-and-D, but not enough production to be a game changer. 

He is still desirable if his contract is modest, but without production he's not that essential. The BEST of those types don't tend to get huge contracts, and Green is far from that level so far. I wouldn't offer him more than MLE money, and maybe not even that, and if he wanted more, I would make him prove it this year and then chase it as a RFA (where RFA status would tend to limit offers, and give me ability to match).

(09-02-2023, 03:55 AM)Mavs2021 Wrote: ..and yet they are still better than us.

(09-02-2023, 03:55 AM)Mavs2021 Wrote: ..and yet they are still better than us.

(09-02-2023, 11:31 AM)F Gump Wrote: On offense, he can't just be a bystander, accepting leftovers and only shooting wide open shots, if he is to be regarded and paid as a key player. He has to be looking for shots, and taking hard ones when needed, to pressure the opposition in a different way.

(09-02-2023, 11:39 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Oh, wow. I respect your opinions, but disagree with this one pretty strongly. I just want him to focus on becoming the Mavs' version of Tony Allen, Trevor Ariza, Danny, Green, Shane Battier, etc. There are a ton of guys who were paid well (deep into their 30's in most cases) and considered extremely key to some very, very good teams who didn't play offense the way you're describing. In my view, he just needs to SHOOT when he's open, just so he holds a defender and doesn't kill the spacing. If he can do more, GREAT! But, I don't think more is required to be an MLE-level guy, which is the basic range we're talking about, right? 

I don't think Grant Williams can do much more than that on offense and I'm THRILLED about his contract.

EDIT: Having said all of the above, I definitely don't view Green as "untouchable," probably because I ASSUME his ceiling is role player. I LIKE role players, but again, would top out at MLE money with him. If he thinks he deserves more (not sure why he would, given that he has yet to play a full season with a defined rotation role) then by all means, put him in the right deal and restructure the team.

(09-02-2023, 02:02 PM)F Gump Wrote: The problem I have with Green is his elevation to must-have status, which would assume at whatever the price it will take. If he has a modest salary (80-100% of the MLE), I think that's the top of the range for a player like him. But jump into a higher range, and I am really leery of him playing up to that contract, much less proving to be a good value.

Price does impact desirability. We ALWAYS see players through the lens of their contract, because it impacts what else the team can do, and it also determines how easily he can be traded if need be.

I keep getting strawmanned by people arguing against my points by saying "he doesn't need to be a star" even though I have never argued that (nor is anyone else). At the right price, he can be a useful role player with the limits of his play. But will he be signed at the right price for that level of play? And will we ever get much more production than where he already is? It feels like the answer to both of those is that we have to pay whatever it takes and we see no real jump in his production, and I'm saying that needs to be seen realistically rather than with the pie-in-the-sky approach of "oh, he'll get way better, he has 'potential' " attitude.

(09-02-2023, 02:18 PM)IamDougieFresh Wrote:  five 3 point attempt’s per game.