OTA Notes: Ellington beats Johnson, Patton beats Brock, Brooks beats Kaepernick

SANTA CLARA — Here’s what stood out to me at Wednesday’s mini-camp.

THE GOOD

1. Bruce Ellington — The only receiver who caught a deep pass. During one-on-one drills, Ellington ran deep against rookie cornerback Dontae Johnson. McLeod Bethel-Thompson threw a perfect deep pass. Ellington jumped up and caught the ball over Johnson, who is five inches taller than Ellington.

2. Quinton Patton — Was two-for-two against Tramaine Brock during one-on-one drills. Patton beat Brock twice to the inside.

3. Corey Lemonier — Recorded two “sacks” during team drills. On one play, Lemonier knocked away a pass intended for Ellington while covering him in the slot.

4. Eric Reid — Intercepted McLeod Bethel-Thompson during an 11-on-11 team drill. Bethel-Thompson threw a short pass over the middle to Patton. Reid read the play all the way and jumped the route.

THE NOT-SO-GOOD

1. Colin Kaepernick — Didn’t see the field well. First, Kaepernick dropped back and threw blindly to his right during an 11-on-11 team drill. The pass went right to Ahmad Brooks who easily intercepted it. Later during the same team drill, Kaepernick rolled to his right and then quickly rolled back to his left, faking out the defense. Anquan Boldin was wide open in the end zone — no one within 15 yards of him — but Kaepernick never saw him. Instead, he threw a 10-yard pass to Vance McDonald.

2. Josh Johnson — Didn’t throw accurately. Missed badly on some easy throws. During a red-zone drill, he sailed a pass too high for his intended receiver and Perrish Cox intercepted it.

, , , , , , , ,
      1. That’s just the beginning. The Duke of Ellington put up similar numbers to VD in the SEC. He’s a natural slot receiver who can use his quickness to get by the defender and get deep. He can high point the ball and he’s extremely versatile…..

        1. Ellington is a tough guy for his size and he has real good hands. He catches anything that is close. Doesn’t seem to have break away speed. Players catch him from behind. I think he will surprise a lot of people.

          Grant-I heard they were running Patton and Ellington as gunners on the return team. Is that true?

  1. Grant,
    When you say Kaepernick didn’t see the field well, was it more about those plays you highlighted or was it the whole practice? Does he look more comfortable back there or is it about the same as previous years? Lastly, do you think the strength of the 49ers defense plays into it?

  2. Grant, did you see what kinds of drills/instruction George Whitfield was giving to Kaepernick? What were your thoughts? Per Taylor Hicks (49ers.com), Whitfield was working on Kap’s delivery.

    “Quarterback guru, turned 49ers coaching intern George Whitfield, continued to work with the team’s signal-callers in a variety of ways. On this day, Whitfield worked with Kaepernick and others on quick passes, some with side-arm delivery.”

    http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Day-2-Observations-from-49ers-Minicamp-/3b4f1d9a-73a0-429a-8d8e-940f8ae431a0?campaign=social_20140619_26284236

  3. I wonder what goes through Boldin’s (or any other WR’s) mind when that happens.
    .
    Does his confidence fade a bit?
    .
    .
    .
    *ALOHA*

        1. Really hope I am wrong about Vance. But my first take is usually right. Have been wrong before. I thought Rodger Craig was going to be an average back.

      1. I’m emotionally invested in McDonald because I thought he was a great draft pick. I spent a year making excuses. A rookie learning Walker’s complex SAK role is expected to play slow until routes and assignments become instinctive. This opinion was echoed by Roman this week.

        I was expecting the clanker hands to fade away this training camp. He better start showing something soon. I already have AJ Jenkins as a black mark on an otherwise pretty good rookie assessment record.

  4. On the play Kaepernick was intercepted, was it similar to the one against Carolina that resulted in Hunter getting blown up?

      1. Late 2nd or 4th quarter. They were going towards the South endzone and the pass was to the flat towards the 49ers sideline.

        1. That’s what it looked like, except Kaepernick ended up throwing it right to the Sam backer.

          1. Thanks. From what you’ve seen the last two days is it fair to say the offense is executing at about the same rate they were a year ago at this time?

    1. Ghost: I think it shows how hungry and competitive they are to win. They practice as hard as they play.

    2. I even thought this was ridiculously over-done…do we really need a 5 minute video of a camp scuffle….these happen all the time. I don’t think we’ve had one in a while…last one I remember was when Vernon put a lickin’ on P. Harralson…that was some awesome video.

      1. You’re right Leo, teams have these squabbles all the time and NFL just happened to have their cameras going.They are playing it every half hour on TV. All the WR are competing for places and I guess Bates was knocked down by EThomas and then had the altercation with Sherman. Last thing we need is someone injured.

  5. Like Cooks size, measurables. Encouraging news he loves the new environment, close locker room, & how motivated the team is here. Cooks sounds rejuvenated, excited, focused.

    Would be fantastic if we had something of a breakout season for him on a new team & system a la when Carlos Rogers first came here as a Free Agent. Sounds good, promising so far. Has some potential there. Would be an awesome surprise if he can excel & re-establish himself. Pulling for the dude. Go Cooks!

    http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Chris-Cook-Works-with-49ers-First-team-Defense/307f3857-1f6b-486c-b72b-2ce0dccd657b

    1. I like Cook also. He really seems to be getting acclimated here. I honestly don’t think he will be what everyone expected him to be coming out, but I think he will be serviceable. This is the perfect defense for him. He definitely wont be left on an island.

      And people like to bring up Rogers turning around his career but he was always a quality starter with the skins. The only real knock on him was that he couldn’t catch a pick to save his life. And he quickly turned that around his 1st year here.

      1. We won’t know what he have in Cooks until news from training camp comes & pre-season games esp if he’s still running with the first team. Like the positive news so far. It could be the other way & there wouldn’t be much promise but a bad start for him. Right now it’s positive news.

        I could of swore Rogers was getting torched in Washington. Bad teams, not motivated, & not sure if the scheme fit him. I remember he got dogged for his bad hands yes but believe he was getting burned quite a bit too & not living up to his 1st Round draft status.

        On a side note McDonald has disappointed almost bigtime up to this point. If I remember right we wanted him to be the Walker “swiss army knife” & more of a playmaker. Not just a supporting cast blocker. So far dudes dropped more passes than Walker. Microscope year for him as a pass catcher.

        I had high doubts Davis could ever improve his “brick hands” to being a reliable pass catcher but man I’m shocked & surpised by his hard work & accomplishment. Walker needs to get on it….take some notes from VD & hit that extra time on the jugs after practice + whatever extra he can put in to improve his hands. Or is that just who he is? Not a receiver type TE in the NFL, not reliable therefore he’ll just be mainly used as a blocker? I believe still he should be able to be used for the short pass for a 3rd down conversion or in the RZ. Just not that all over the intermediate area & long once & a while weapon until he can prove to have more reliable hands. I repeat big microscope year for McDonald. We’re going to find out who he is as a player in year 2

      2. Correction:

        McDonald hasn’t had many balls thrown to him so he couldn’t drop more than Walker who was productive but he seems to drop more than he’s caught.

      1. When I scrambled to watch footage of Lattimore when he was drafted, his catching stood out. Very good hands, but also shows natural adjustments to the ball in flight. Gore catches passes because he works extremely hard at it. Lattimore is a natural.

        The limiting factor will be how well Colin progresses in his tough short passes.

      1. Now only if we can get the the lions, tigers, and bears up in furry arms over being used as trademarks. Let’s not forget patriots, bulls, rockets, etc.

          1. No it isn’t Jack. Most of the American Indians or those with some of their blood running their veins (including me) have no problems with the name. Or more to the point, 79%. Ignoring that fact and only focusing on the few in a tizzy over this is the sign of ignorance.

            1. [Sigh] Here we go again.

              MWD:

              At one point in time, a majority of Americans had no problems with slavery. Too bad that we ignored that fact and listened to the few who got into a tizzy over it. Btw, the National Congress of American Indians, which represents far more Native Americans than you, is on record stating the the term is a slur.

              And your likening a racial slur to “lions,” “tigers,” and “bears” is about as ignorant as it gets. It’s the same kind of “logic” that leads certain opponents to gay marriage to equate homosexuality with bestiality. “If we let the gays get married, what’s next? Letting people marry their dogs?”

              1. @claude

                “a majority of Americans had no problems with slavery”

                Actually, that statement is quite untrue. Slavery was legal under British rule and then became legal after the revolution but at all times the majority of Americans were against slavery. It was a wealthy and powerful minority that favored slavery.

                Do you suppose the National Congress of American Indians has told the Red Mesa Redskins who have a student population made up of 97% native Americans that their school mascot is a racial slur? At one point the do-gooders tried to get them to change the mascot but the community rose up and said they were proud of the name and it was not offensive in any way.

                The rest of the gay marriage analogy is just plain silly and has nothing to do with anything.

              2. but at all times the majority of Americans were against slavery. It was a wealthy and powerful minority that favored slavery.

                Yeah, and homosexuals are universally accepted and welcomed in all parts of the country and in all parts of American society. Sorry, but I’m not inclined to accept as accurate your factual representations on these kinds of issues. The abolitionist movement didn’t gain much momentum until the 1810s because there weren’t that many Americans who were upset about the institution. Americans (including those in the northern states that had ended slavery) liked the cheap goods that slavery produced, and, outside of the Quakers, most churches weren’t vocally anti-slavery (and many were vocally pro-slavery).

                I don’t know whether the NCAI has taken a position with regard to the Red Mesa team name, but a school with a 97% Native American population using the term “Redskins” is quite different from an NFL team using it. I hope you can see the distinction, but I’m not counting on it .

                If you don’t like the gay marriage analogies, I suggest you take it up with the gay marriage opponents who keep making them.

              3. Sorry Claude, but I refuse to listen to a National anything when it comes to talking about the American Indians because this nation has screwed them over since its inception.
                The term Redskin was never a racial slur to begin with.

                ‘The earliest known appearance of the term in print occurred on October 9, 1813 in an article quoting a letter dated August 27, 1813 from a gentleman at St. Louis concerning an expedition being formed and to be led by Gen. Benjamin Howard to “route the savages from the Illinois and Mississippi territories[.]” “The expedition will be 40 days out, and there is no doubt but we shall have to contend with powerful hordes of red skins, as our frontiers have been lined with them last summer, and have had frequent skirmishes with our regulars and rangers.”

                However, linguist Ives Goddard has stated, “When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, “it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level,” Goddard said in an interview. “These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.” It was not until July 22, 1815, that “red skin” first appeared in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

                The term derives from the use of “red” color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is in a speech (first transcribed in French and later into English) by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder in which he is recorded as stating, “My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”

                Although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet, according to historian Alden T. Vaughan, “Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians.”
                The earliest known appearance of the term in print occurred on October 9, 1813 in an article quoting a letter dated August 27, 1813 from a gentleman at St. Louis concerning an expedition being formed and to be led by Gen. Benjamin Howard to “route the savages from the Illinois and Mississippi territories[.]” “The expedition will be 40 days out, and there is no doubt but we shall have to contend with powerful hordes of red skins, as our frontiers have been lined with them last summer, and have had frequent skirmishes with our regulars and rangers.”[7]

                However, linguist Ives Goddard has stated, “When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, “it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level,” Goddard said in an interview. “These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.” It was not until July 22, 1815, that “red skin” first appeared in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

                The term derives from the use of “red” color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is in a speech (first transcribed in French and later into English) by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder in which he is recorded as stating, “My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”

                Although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet, according to historian Alden T. Vaughan, “Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians.”

                “Redskin” was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was “Indian”, perpetuating Columbus’ belief that he had found the Indies. The first use of red-skin or red Indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre. Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Lenape or Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States, where Native American Chiefs referred to themselves and the tribes they represented, as ” redskins “. Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning “people” and humma meaning “red”).

                During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers. This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation. The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year. Since the proclamation itself does not use the word, citing it as the origin of “redskin” as another word for scalp has also been called “revisionist history”. However, a historical association between the use of “redskin” and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: “The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.”

                A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage. However, the use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was nearly the same with more frequent negative than positive contexts. …suggesting that Redskin was not a derogatory term, but that most portrayals of Native Americans were negative in general. The term was in common use in movies during the most popular period for Hollywood westerns (approximately 1920-1970), with “redskins” usually being used to refer to Native Americans when war was imminent or in process. As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term’s appropriateness.

                In other words, Redskin became a derogatory word became Americans in the 1800s labeled it as such, but the truth is that any term used to describe the Native Americans was almost always used in a negative way, with Indian being the most common. Hollywood did nothing to help when it used the term redskins was used to describe an attack from them in western movies.
                I don’t know what path some take, but I choose to accept this as a term that is a part of the Native American heritage that idiots decided to use in a derogatory form, idots that I also choose to ignore. And like I said to Will, there are more pressing priorities with the Native Americans that need to be addressed….IMMEDIATELY!

              4. Well claude, just a few points. The Abolitionist movement didn’t get going in full force until the early 19th century as you stated but opposition to slavery really started mounting with the Founding Fathers in the latter half of the 18th century. It is true that some religious movements, the Puritans are a good example, did not have a problem with slavery. They saw themselves as God’s chosen people so abuses of other people didn’t bother them much. HOWEVA, an interesting dynamic was that a large number of early settlers to the US were indentured servants who had very strong feelings against slavery. In fact, many indentured servants were sent to the New World by their “owners” to earn income or look for wealth to send home. From a total societal point of view, a very small percentage of the population were slave owners. As it was British law many early settlers just accepted it but didn’t like. Once the Revolution was settled the debate about what laws should govern this nation became hotly debated and the Abolitionist movement really started. I spent a lot of money to learn that useless information and I’ve never had a need for it. So thanks for helping me out.

                I find the idea that it’s ok for the Red Mesa Redskins to be acceptable but the Washington Redskins to be unacceptable shockingly absurd. If the name is offensive, it’s offensive. If the name is acceptable, it’s acceptable. Regardless of who uses it. It’s absurd and really offensive to create different societal rules based on race. It’s truly idiotic.

            1. You can’t use that argument. What happens when you use that logic, you can use majority rule for racial terms/segregation. If you do, you get things like separate but equal. Tell me how successful that was. Majority rule does not work in discriminatory situations. This is civil rights 101.

              1. Crap, that came out wrong. Edited for being more clear:

                You can’t use that argument. You can’t use majority rule for racial terms/segregation. If you do, you get things like separate but equal. Tell me how successful that was. Majority rule does not work in discriminatory situations. This is civil rights 101.

              2. Civil rights 101 also tells us to treat everyone equally, which is something that is severely missing when it comes to discussing the American Indian. You expect me to get upset about a team name when there are bigger difficulties facing them, namely lack of funds from the government, poor health, being poorly educated, and their culture and heritage disappering amongst other things? Give me a break!

              3. Yes, I agree, don’t get me started on affirmative action. Only way to get rid of issues would be to treat people equally.

    1. Alex is smart enough to know that on this team he will always be underpaid for his position, so his purpose in holding out might be to force a trade. Just a guess.

      1. Alex is smart enough to know that on this team he will always be underpaid for his position …

        I wouldn’t be surprised if he also wants to move to the more highly paid OT position. Since such a move is more likely to occur on another team, Boone would have even more motivation to seek a trade.

      2. I think Boone’s smart enough to know that this team gives him the best shot at getting a ring, and soon. For that reason I can’t see him or anyone else on this team, except LMJ, wanting to be traded. Paid more? Yes. Contract extended? Definitely. Traded? You would have to be driven solely by money, which we all know is a very strong motivator, but I imagine the lure of winning a Super Bowl or two is a pretty strong incentive too.

        1. I hope you’re right. Not saying you’re wrong, but I think you will agree that most players go for the money. They are not solely driven by money, but their careers are limited and there’s the issue of disability, to head and body. I live in northern California and have seen Jim Plunkett walk down the street with a pronounced limp. Just an example.

          1. Yeah I completely get why money’s gotta be the #1 or close to #1 motivator for players, especially given the health risks that come with playing, but I bet getting a ring is up there near the top too. These guys are fierce competitors, all NFL players have to be just to get into the league, and those rings are the one thing that sets the best apart from the rest. Those rings have the allure of Frodo’s ring to these guys. I can’t see them giving up the chance to get one too easily.

              1. Lol. Good point. But, we didn’t miss Goldson and we won’t miss Whitner either. The fact that they are both on horrible teams and will never get a ring will hopefully weigh into other players decisions.

              2. Its one thing to move on for more money when you are a free agent, another to not show for more money while you are under contract. Boone isn’t deciding between a big dollar contract offer from another team vs a more modest contract from the 49ers. He’s deciding between a chance at a SB ring with the 49ers on a modest contract or pushing for a chance at a SB ring with the 49ers on a bigger contract.

              3. “He’s deciding between a chance at a SB ring with the 49ers on a modest contract or pushing for a chance at a SB ring with the 49ers on a bigger contract.”

                It appears that decision has already been made Scooter, and depending on how far he wants to take it he may find himself on the sidelines this season.

              4. @ Jack

                I am so glad you spend your days on this site relaying your vast wisdom and brilliance on all the common people. Without you here to correct people or at least explain why they are wrong I’m sure their lives would be error riddled messes. It’s good to have a guy like you to relay the exact motivations of Whitner and Goldson, or to tell people their opinions are “ignorant.” You should change your screen name to Oz or perhaps Omniscient One. Thanks again.

              5. Yes, I should have made that past tense Jack, thanks.

                And I agree – if he decides to hold out for a lengthy period he’ll likely be surpassed by one of the younger guys.

              6. Scooter,

                Hopefully you know that I wasn’t trying to correct you. I only put that there so you would know which part of your comment I was responding to.

            1. I agree it is up there near the top. For someone like Staley, it looks like it is. For someone like Iupati, it looks like it’s not. For Boone?

              As has been pointed out, if they like Looney at right guard, Boone’s only leverage is as back-up tackle. If he’s in there, at left or right, they’re in good shape. Better than with Snyder, IMO. So maybe they’ll offer him more money and bump up Staley, if Boone agrees. Just a guess.

    2. Boone will be a priority. He deserves a raise, granted I’m not a fan of holding out to get it, but he’s clearly outperformed his current contract. And last time I checked, Looney wasn’t the back-up LT. Boone’s versatility is why he will get paid. Not too many guards in this league and slide over to LT and actually look better. Baalke knows this. He just wont re-work his deal right now because it will set a bad precedent. But eventually, Boone will get his.

  6. I expected another significant step in terms of progress from Kap and it’s not showing up in mini camp. I’m seeing the same behavior which very much concerns me. I don’t care how much Kap “grinds”, I need him to open up his field vision and I need him to stop throwing blindly. Until Kap develops his field of vision, it doesn’t matter how many great weapons the offense has on the field.

    1. Well, if you haven’t seen significant progress from Kaepernick by the second day of mini camp, then such progress obviously isn’t coming at all this year. The season is lost already, the team is doomed, and that contract was a huge mistake.

      Smh.

  7. I think its clear over the past 2 years that Colin Kaepernick is not the best practice player but rather a game day player. So maybe save us the rhetoric of what he does in practice.

  8. It looks like Vernon Davis, may not have as much less leverage as Grant thinks. If Niners Nation is correct about the terms of Davis’s deal with Fantex, Fantex can still claim 10 percent of Davis’s weekly paycheck even if Davis is forfeiting that money during his holdout. Fantex is entitled to 10% of all money Davis “earns.” Apparently, he still will earn his weekly paycheck during the holdout, but will forfeit the money.

    If that analysis is correct, I don’t see his holdout lasting into the regular season. It’s one thing to not receive your paycheck; it’s quite another to write someone else a check for 10% of the money you aren’t receiving.

    The story is here: http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/6/19/5823606/vernon-davis-fantex-deal-adds-a-wrinkle-or-2-to-his-contract-holdout

    The article links to the Fantex prospectus for Davis, but I haven’t had time to review it. If NN’s reading of the deal is incorrect, then please ignore the foregoing.

    1. Davis has a ton of money. If he thinks he ultimately can profit by standing firm and holding out, he can afford that strategy.

          1. Vernon’s still blazing… but after 30 those high strung hammys are more likely to go twang.

            Running style might exacerbate the risk.

            There is smooth fast (Rice) and twitchy fast (Vernon and Sammy Watkins). Vernon seems to run with alot of power and built-up muscle tension. He seems like the kind of runner that will start pulling hammys more frequently as his career progresses.

      1. So Grant, you’re privy to Vernon’s bank account info are you? You know what he can afford and for how long too? You must have some awesome hacking skills.
        Or are you a CPA on the side?

  9. WTF?!
    .
    Now the Dubs are offering up Klay in a trade for Love???
    .
    I can see packaging Barnes and a pick or maybe two…but Klay?
    .
    The kid plays both ways!
    .
    Love is sick…but why bust up an awesome young backcourt?
    .
    Sorry, had to vent somewhere…
    .
    .
    .
    *ALOHA*

    1. If Clay was more consistent the trade never happens. They’ve been working on this trade for a couple of months….

    2. Love is part of the reason the T-wolves never make the play-offs. Dude doesn’t play defense. He’s a stat chaser. They are better off keeping Klay, HB, Draymond, or any other young players they might consider trading.

  10. bayareafanatic:
    .
    He may be inconsistant now, but he’s young and getting better every year–both ways.
    .
    He consistantly draws the best PGs in the league and holds his own on D which, as we all know, frees up Steph.
    .
    He may a little cold sometimes but mostly he’s money at SG.
    .
    .
    Grimey9er:
    .
    I agree…Love doesn’t play D like Lee doesn’t play D.
    .
    But talk about an upgrade at PF!
    .
    I think they REALLY want to unload Lee’s bloated contract which is why they’re even considering throwing in Klay.
    .
    I hope they give up Barnes instead…the kid’s got no perimeter game to speak of anyways…
    .
    .
    .
    *ALOHA*

Comments are closed.