09-17-2021, 12:03 PM
I read Dan's post differently than @"KillerLeft"and especially @"F Gump". I didn't read the post and then think that Dan was saying (1) that the Mavs don't need a secondary creator, (2) are ok with not getting a secondary creator or (3) might have a plan to remove the need of a secondary creator.
Here's what he says that mentions a secondary creator.
My takeway wasn't "this is the plan instead of a secondary creator", it was "here's another way to create scoring that can diversify the offense and there is a little evidence that the Mavs might be think that way."
I think we need a scondary creator, regardless. Ideally, we could have a secondary creator AND better player and ball movement!
Here's what he says that mentions a secondary creator.
(09-17-2021, 07:34 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Bottom line, there are other ways to "create" if you don't have a natural secondary creator. You create through movement.
My takeway wasn't "this is the plan instead of a secondary creator", it was "here's another way to create scoring that can diversify the offense and there is a little evidence that the Mavs might be think that way."
I think we need a scondary creator, regardless. Ideally, we could have a secondary creator AND better player and ball movement!