MavsBoard

Gobert is basically the new Dikembe Mutombo.

(12-22-2020, 04:04 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Getting back to a serious argument, can you point to me a defensive, dunking center leading to a championship in the last decade (or longer)?

I am just thinking about some very good all-star defensive, dunking, rebounding centers of the last decade:

- DAJ
- Whiteside
- Adams
- Capella
- Chandler

These are all centers without much of an offensive game outside of dunking. I do not include guys like either Gasol brother or even Dwight Howard who had more offensive game in their prime. How many of these guys could carry a team?

Interestingly enough all of these guys the Mavs have had interest in over the years. Chandler was the lynchpin to the Mavs getting over the hump but the Mavs didn't build a team around him. The Knicks got Chandler the next year who was DPOY but he and Carmelo + old Kidd got only to the second round.

I would say Capella has had the most success out of this bunch in terms of team success. The Rockets came very close to beating the stacked Warriors. I don't think any of these guys were ever the first or 2nd building block. At best maybe the 3rd core piece? And honestly I don't believe any of these players in their prime are much different than Gobert in his current prime.

Are you really going to believe that Gobert is able to be your first or second best player and win a championship? Honestly I think the Jazz have a shot at contention but mostly bc they have a very solid roster including extremely underrated Bojan Bogdan who was injured last year. Bojan, Mitchell, Ingles, Gobert, Favors, Conley, Clarkson. They are solid. Their ceiling to me is tied more to their playmakers Bojan and Mitchell than Gobert.

1-Gobert here won't be best player, so he fits the Chandler description. 

2-Regarding to leading to a championship, the last C who won finals MVP was Shaq in 2002. So, do we stop looking for a good C anyway? Maybe we choose wrong teammate for Luka since folks here think KP is a C. 

3-In fact, the last 9 winners of finals MVP were all SF. Lebron/KD/Kawhi/Iggy. 

4-If you take those guys, add Curry to the list, remove Iggy and say those are the elite players in the NBA today? those would be top 4 anyway. 
So, who forms the rest of top 10 if you believes that those are the only one to lead you to true contention? Maybe another young point forward like Luka? and that is it? 
There are more room in top 10 (or even top 7) for players who can't lead you to too championship team.

(12-22-2020, 07:32 PM)khaled1987 Wrote: [ -> ]1-Gobert here won't be best player, so he fits the Chandler description. 

2-Regarding to leading to a championship, the last C who won finals MVP was Shaq in 2002. So, do we stop looking for a good C anyway? Maybe we choose wrong teammate for Luka since folks here think KP is a C. 

3-In fact, the last 9 winners of finals MVP were all SF. Lebron/KD/Kawhi/Iggy. 

4-If you take those guys, add Curry to the list, remove Iggy and say those are the elite players in the NBA today? those would be top 4 anyway. 
So, who forms the rest of top 10 if you believes that those are the only one to lead you to true contention? Maybe another young point forward like Luka? and that is it? 
There are more room in top 10 (or even top 7) for players who can't lead you to too championship team.

1 - If Gobert is a top 10 player as has been stated here by Fifteenth and Kamm, then he would at least need to be the 2nd on a team with Top 5 Luka.

2 - There are two arguments being made in this thread. One would Gobert be a good pick up on the Mavs which is officially moot. The other argument is whether or not Gobert is a top 10 NBA player. That debate rages on.

3 - Another reason not to pay a defensive center 200 million dollars.

4 - ? Don't really understand this point.

(12-22-2020, 07:25 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Gobert is basically the new Dikembe Mutombo.

You can make a very strong argument that Gobert is better than Mutombo was. 

Gobert is NOT as good as Bill Russell was (SO DO NOT MISQUOTE ME), but Bill Russell is the blueprint of sorts of what you hope you get from Gobert.

Prime Dwight is the best, most recent comparison to Gobert, but Dwight was more athletic on offense, and his team was built completely around him... and they still didn't win anything.

(12-22-2020, 08:11 PM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]Prime Dwight is the best, most recent comparison to Gobert, but Dwight was more athletic on offense, and his team was built completely around him... and they still didn't win anything.

(12-22-2020, 08:02 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]You can make a very strong argument that Gobert is better than Mutombo was. 

Gobert is NOT as good as Bill Russell was (SO DO NOT MISQUOTE ME), but Bill Russell is the blueprint of sorts of what you hope you get from Gobert.

So Gobert somewhere in btwn Mutombo and Bill Russell. Got it.

(12-22-2020, 08:02 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]You can make a very strong argument that Gobert is better than Mutombo was. 

Gobert is NOT as good as Bill Russell was (SO DO NOT MISQUOTE ME), but Bill Russell is the blueprint of sorts of what you hope you get from Gobert.

So if Mutombo is the floor of Gobert, and Russell is the ceiling, where does Gobert lie on that scale? Further, how do we even accurately value that kind of player? Mutombo was one of the best paint protectors to ever play, and he played in an era where paint protection was paramount. 

His highest paid contract was a 5 year 70 mil deal signed by the Hawks. At the highest point during his contract, Mutumbo accounted for 40% of his teams cap space  which was 16.1 mil (basically 22 mil now adjusted for inflation) in 2002. The 40% number is scarily similar to Gobert's new extension and how much he's going to take up the Jazz space (Gobert will eventually pass that in the final year of his deal with his 49 mil player option but it depends on cap growth, which is hard to predict). 

The only issue is Mutumbo was bought out by the Nets after he was traded to them, as he was seen as an aging albatross by Philly who made the Finals with him in 2001. Now their situations aren't 1 to 1 AT ALL. So please don't misunderstand me (I'm not trying to throw a subtle shade at Gobert here at all). I just found it interesting that when Mutumbo, who just literally made the finals a year prior, who had a massive impact on Philly, and when he was at his most highest paid, was seen as a ballast not an asset. Of course his age played a significant role in his diminishing play which needs to be pointed out as well, but I think it's interesting to see Philly decide to pivot away from Dikembe instead of just keeping him for a bench role (which he went on to play for Houston and NYK for another 6 years). 

Russell doesn't even need an introduction on his impact in winning. If he played today he'd get a contract probably even bigger than Gobert's. So I'm curious to see where you think Gobert lies on this scale because Mutombo was at one point paid relatively the same pay as Gobert at their highpoints of their career.

(12-22-2020, 11:45 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]So if Mutombo is the floor of Gobert, and Russell is the ceiling, where does Gobert lie on that scale?

I have no idea how to quantify that.

Why not just TC as the comparison to Gobert?

Gobert is a better offensive player than Chandler. This is why it is hard to Guage where Rudy fits on a scale. He is better offensively than the pure defensive types, and is miles beyond anyone not named Anthony Davis on the defensive side of the ball. He is the 3rd best player at his position in the league currently and does so as a passable 2-way player who is bordering elite on D.

Yes teams can game plan him in a playoff situation where he has to repeatedly guard in space, but I would be willing to see what a regular season minute restriction would do for his athleticism come playoff time... I do think the bubble version got exposed so to speak, but look at what Dame does to us in the regular!

(12-23-2020, 12:11 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea how to quantify that.

Fair. Neither do I really. 3 players from drastically different eras, all playing a variation of the same role but neither is exactly alike.


More to just keep the conversation alive than anything.

(12-23-2020, 01:33 AM)SkenfromLMF Wrote: [ -> ]Gobert is a better offensive player than Chandler. This is why it is hard to Guage where Rudy fits on a scale. He is better offensively than the pure defensive types, and is miles beyond anyone not named Anthony Davis on the defensive side of the ball. He is the 3rd best player at his position in the league currently and does so as a passable 2-way player who is bordering elite on D.

Gobert is like as good offensively as you can get without having an actual offensive game in terms of shooting or post-ups. All of his stuff is around the basket. I still think there are some comps to Hassan Whiteside in his day who was putting him similar points (averaged 17 points the year he led the lead in rebounds at 14/game) and twice led the league in blocked shots. He averaged 3.7 blocks in 2015 which is insane. We can act like he sucks now but he was thought of as an elite center at that time.

(12-23-2020, 09:10 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Gobert is like as good offensively as you can get without having an actual offensive game in terms of shooting or post-ups. All of his stuff is around the basket. I still think there are some comps to Hassan Whiteside in his day who was putting him similar points (averaged 17 points the year he led the lead in rebounds at 14/game) and twice led the league in blocked shots. He averaged 3.7 blocks in 2015 which is insane. We can act like he sucks now but he was thought of as an elite center at that time.

Only by casual fans. He was a monster around the rim. Similar to Drummond or DAJ but all of them refuse to step out of the paint to guard the perimeter and cannot defend the pick and roll. Just like them he also isn´t playing good team defense and gambles on reb/blks instead of doing his job on rotations or boxouts.

(12-23-2020, 09:10 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Gobert is like as good offensively as you can get without having an actual offensive game in terms of shooting or post-ups. All of his stuff is around the basket. I still think there are some comps to Hassan Whiteside in his day who was putting him similar points (averaged 17 points the year he led the lead in rebounds at 14/game) and twice led the league in blocked shots. He averaged 3.7 blocks in 2015 which is insane. We can act like he sucks now but he was thought of as an elite center at that time.

Whiteside has better shooting touch and his effort and being a bit of a knucklehead plagued him.  

I still like the Chandler comparison, personally.

I'm a member of the Tyson Chandler fan club, which has the core belief that Mark should have CTC for Tyson in 2011. So, it's awful that you guys are pushing this conversation to this point. But...

Gobert is better than Tyson. 

And the Whiteside comparison is silly. Whiteside never came close to impacting the game like Gobert. No one ever for a second considered Whiteside even close to what Gobert is now. Forget this argument for a second about whether Gobert is a top 10 player and just consider the concensus NBA comunity opinion that Gobert is at least top 20. Whiteside was never close to that. 

I'm not even much of a Gobert fan. I don't want him on the floor with KP. But even if Kam is a bit off with his top 10 assessment, he's not off by much just based on NBA community concensus. Kam is way closer to reality than most of these arguments that are calling him crazy. 

The "Whiteside is a good comp" thing is crazy. Go take that argument to folks that know more than we do and see how far you get.

(12-23-2020, 11:35 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a member of the Tyson Chandler fan club, which has the core belief that Mark should have CTC for Tyson in 2011. So, it's awful that you guys are pushing this conversation to this point. But...

Gobert is better than Tyson. 

And the Whiteside comparison is silly. Whiteside never came close to impacting the game like Gobert. No one ever for a second considered Whiteside even close to what Gobert is now. Forget this argument for a second about whether Gobert is a top 10 player and just consider the concensus NBA comunity opinion that Gobert is at least top 20. Whiteside was never close to that. 

I'm not even much of a Gobert fan. I don't want him on the floor with KP. But even if Kam is a bit off with his top 10 assessment, he's not off by much just based on NBA community concensus. Kam is way closer to reality than most of these arguments that are calling him crazy. 

The "Whiteside is a good comp" thing is crazy. Go take that argument to folks that know more than we do and see how far you get.

Better wouldn't negate the comparison though.  I just think they bring similar offensive/defense skillsets to their team.  Tyson really only has the advantage of being a better leader.

My take is a little on board with everyone:

1) So far, Gobert HAS been special. In the right situation his IS a difference maker, and probably an underrated one. I find the argument that he’s no different than Drummond or DAJ to be offensive, and I find that it drastically misses the mark on what Gobert has brought to the table during his career.

BUT...

2) I, personally, wouldn’t feel comfortable having him as one of my top 2 players, especially once he’s off his rookie contract. I just think it’s much easier to build around guys who can handle the ball on offense, especially when your high-priced players are already in place. If you’ve got two really great (non bigs) players already and you can somehow add him as your third, that’s a good idea, imo.

AND...

3) I do wonder whether the evolution of the sport will progress quickly enough to render Gobert obsolete before his career has run is course. I’m not SURE this will happen, but if I was a Utah fan, I’d definitely live with a healthy fear that every microscopic amount of speed and quickness Gobert loses brings him closer to a state where he literally can’t be played in some situations. We’re not there yet - he’s not Hibbert. And, we might not ever get there. But, it would be a concern of mine, if I had a vested interest in the player.

(12-23-2020, 11:46 AM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]Better wouldn't negate the comparison though.  I just think they bring similar offensive/defense skillsets to their team.  Tyson really only has the advantage of being a better leader.

Gotcha. The argument has been about how good he is, so that's how I was thining about it.

(12-23-2020, 11:49 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]Gotcha. The argument has been about how good he is, so that's how I was thining about it.

Makes sense.  He is great.  I'm just not sure he's 40m per year great and then I start thinking about how close to his production can I get at 1/4th the cost.  

I do have some bias though as I soured on him with his COVID microphone antics.