I mean, Grimes IS a good point of attack defender. But I’d sacrifice a little bit of POA defense to get a better, more aggressive two way player in the lineup more often. The way Grimes is playing this year, he’s a net negative player, of that I am convinced.

Or is the idea that Brogdon runs the 2nd unit, freeing IQ to move into the starting lineup?

Still not sure our PoA defense would hold up.

It is what it is. It’s a fun team to watch in a weird way because it bucks so many modern trends, but getting past the second-round will almost certainly require a level of acquiescence to the modern trend of “putting the ball in the basket at an efficient rate.”

The players are definitely rootable and the ceiling, as hard as it is, is still higher than it’s been around here in a long time. So this front office, warts and all, has earned themselves some patience.

But this coming offseason feels like a deadline of sorts to make a major talent upgrade. Not necessarily for any particular cap-related reasons, though those exist too, but because in the absence of one it sure feels like we’ll fall too far behind in the talent accumulation arms race. Plus, things will just get kinda stale from a fan’s POV.

‘Acquiring Donovan Mitchell was supposed to take the Cavaliers to the next level. But instead it looks like it’ll go down as the move that’ll keep them in the middle. Mitchell is a high-caliber scorer, but his tunnel vision on his rim assaults leads to him blatantly ignoring teammates in favor of reckless, forced shots. Add in the fact that he’s a small defender sharing a backcourt with another small guard in Darius Garland, it feels like Cleveland has too much overlap.’

A personnel move that swaps out Grimes for a true backup PG, which would allow Quickley to slide into the starting lineup or at least free up more minutes for Quickley, seems like the best solution. But Leon Rose is the GM, and he likes to stand pat even more than Thibs, so…

This is pretty much what we got. I think it’s becoming clear what kind of team we are: we’ll scrap with you because we rarely turn the ball over and grab a lot of rebounds, but against other teams that negate those strengths we are going to be in trouble, because we’re just not very good at putting the ball in the basket.

Is there a historical analog for a great team that plays this way? A team that is very inefficient but manages to stay competitive by dominating the number of possessions in a game? It just seems like an unlikely way to win consistently against top teams to me. At some point you need to get some more guys who can put it in the basket.

be kind to one another…be kind to yourselves…

Always awesome advice.

Brother Love is Geo, right? Right?

Well he is kind of a traveling salvation show.