A Piston's fan tweeted Marks about taking Stanley Johnson over Winslow after a single SL game.

Marks' responses:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/617676481393754112

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/617674111117037568

Good or bad- hard to put that much faith into SL results.

Galloway had one outstanding game in SL last year, if I remember correctly, hardly gave us reason to believe that he would be one of the top rookies in the league last year.

The things any rookies or SL invitees show in practice- which none of us are seeing- are as important as anything in the SL games, IMO.

WaltLongmire wrote:A bit of SL perspective…

A Piston's fan tweeted Marks about taking Stanley Johnson over Winslow after a single SL game.

Marks' responses:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/617676481393754112

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/617674111117037568

Good or bad- hard to put that much faith into SL results.

Galloway had one outstanding game in SL last year, if I remember correctly, hardly gave us reason to believe that he would be one of the top rookies in the league last year.

The things any rookies or SL invitees show in practice- which none of us are seeing- are as important as anything in the SL games, IMO.

Stanley was just as good as Winslow the best player yesterday was turner. Kaminsky who start off slow could've had a monster ha,e as he was 19-11 with 2 min left in the 3rd but what I saw was enough I liked all of the top tier rookies yesterday they all showed well. The one guy who was a udfa who looked good was branden dawson

I think a good rookie "should" play well here. It's not the end all but I think it's a good base to start

BRIGGS wrote:Hopefully Nate Wolters gets his deserving nba job guy is good every game.

funny ... wolters deserves nothing.

BRIGGS wrote:Kaminsky solid again. His defense stil is a question mark but the pluses are solid.

Nice d by Frank there

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Kaminsky solid again. His defense stil is a question mark but the pluses are solid.

Nice d by Frank there

watched most of the game. His defense is atrocious and I don't think that he can ever be a passable defender.

I was not able to see the game, so all I can do is look at the stat line which, among other things, shows a =/- of +7, 8 rebounds and 2 blks.

Can you actually describe why his D is atrocious and why, in your opinion, he will never be a passable defender?

Briggs was responding to specific things as he watched the game, you made a somewhat broad statement- it would be nice to follow with some examples.

Just a thought.

crzymdups wrote:I like Stanley Johnson's game a lot. I was hoping the Knicks would take a look at him, but I don't think they ever seriously did.

I think they had him in for a workout. I just think they feel KP "Is a once in a lifetime talent" and not for nothing a 7 footer who plays like a a really good SF is a once in a lifetime thing.

mreinman wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Kaminsky solid again. His defense stil is a question mark but the pluses are solid.

Nice d by Frank there

watched most of the game. His defense is atrocious and I don't think that he can ever be a passable defender.

As a former teacher I might accept this as an attempt at a topic sentence, but you might want to include some specific examples to support your main idea...

I was not able to see the game, so all I can do is look at the stat line which, among other things, shows a =/- of +7, 8 rebounds and 2 blks.

Can you actually describe why his D is atrocious and why, in your opinion, he will never be a passable defender?

Briggs was responding to specific things as he watched the game, you made a somewhat broad statement- it would be nice to follow with some examples.

Just a thought.

you should be able to find the game online.

Walt was right, you've added nothing to the discussion.

WaltLongmire wrote:Can you actually describe why his D is atrocious and why, in your opinion, he will never be a passable defender?

It's a small sample size obviously, but he's overestimating his ability to recover as a help defender. He's not 100 percent locked in during transition. He's struggling when other bigs are laying weight on him. He's taking poor angles to the rim.

Some of this stuff is simply going to improve with some experience, but defensively he's slow to read the floor, and is reacting instead of being proactive. He's going to have to learn when the refs will let a game go and when they tighten up the reins some. He'll also have to learn how to wear down his opponent with free contact in close quarters. His timing is off and as he struggles, looks like his usually excellent footwork starts to suffer. I think he'll profile out as having a lot of foul trouble until he counter adjusts.

What's the saying for NFL offensive linemen? They hold on every play but the trick is to learn when to hold when no one is looking.

Effort is not a problem. Strong footwork is the foundation of everything and he has strong footwork in general. His balance is good. He seems to understand how to use his leverage, but not quite when to use it.

He'll never be a plus defender. Despite his size, he'll never play consistently above the rim. He's got length but not the raw athleticism to keep up at full NBA speed.

The problem long term is he's a rookie now and he really isn't in a position to lose a step, when he does lose a step, to injury or attrition, he's going to have some matchup problems. I'd say long term defensive concern is a legitimate issue.

He really needs the right fit and support structure, not sure Jordan can give it to him.