What's new
By:

Big lineup

JazzSpazz said:
You said big lineup, then put Evans in the lineup and kept Favors out.

I can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Yeah but both Gobert and Enes are bigger than Favors... so you've got to keep them there at C and PF. Favors can't play SF, so it's Evans in at the 3.


If he had put Favors in at the 3, you would have called him out too. So, c'mon bro... cut the guy some slack.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Yeah but both Gobert and Enes are bigger than Favors... so you've got to keep them there at C and PF. Favors can't play SF, so it's Evans in at the 3.


If he had put Favors in at the 3, you would have called him out too. So, c'mon bro... cut the guy some slack.
Click to expand...

I would not have called him out for having Favors at the 3 after he said big lineup, which is why I pointed it out.

Is it likely we will see Favors, Kanter, and Gobert on the floor at the same time? Not sure, but doubt it.

I'll take a step or two back... take a breath... and say I suppose I could see this lineup a little here and there for a few minutes. Evans is long and while he gets pushed around can alter and block shots. I wouldn't mind seeing this lineup for a few minutes here and there. Better?
 
JazzSpazz said:
I would not have called him out for having Favors at the 3 after he said big lineup, which is why I pointed it out.

Is it likely we will see Favors, Kanter, and Gobert on the floor at the same time? Not sure, but doubt it.

I'll take a step or two back... take a breath... and say I suppose I could see this lineup a little here and there for a few minutes. Evans is long and while he gets pushed around can alter and block shots. I wouldn't mind seeing this lineup for a few minutes here and there. Better?
Click to expand...

Better.

Favors is really a pivot type player... hangs around the rim, blocking shots. It's been well documented that he struggled guarding even stretch 4's let alone mobile 3's. Hence I think that's the reason the OP had Evans there at the 3 instead of Favors.

Your comment was far from an "end thread" comment, that's for sure.
 
BaronDavisIsDonkeyOnShrek said:
I don't think I've ever heard someone talk about Favors as a 3. With everyone going to a small-ball style of play, I just got thinking how this lineup could compete. That is all
Click to expand...

I was a bit hasty. I think the lineup could compete, but only for short stints. You don't want to play long stretches without Favors unless you are forced to, imo.
 
Putting Evans at 3 is really bad for your offense. He cant space the floor it would make things harder for Burks and Hayward with less driving lanes and for Kanter because he would have less room to operate at the post. When he is in the game at 3 spot he would only make his man(defender) a better help defender. Also he is not good with the ball.

On the other hand i can put him at 3 in defensive line-up in some instances like Orlando did with Earl Clark to defend Durant and to alter his excessively high release shots with his long arms and height. Clark also wasnt a long range threat yet back then like Evans.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Marvin is big for a 3 and has a lot more diverse game than Evans. This is of course banking on him playing better post surgery.

If however, we are talking about in a few years, wow, our entire SF lineup is on one year contracts except for Hayward who plays the two in this example.
 
JazzSpazz said:
You said big lineup, then put Evans in the lineup and kept Favors out.

I can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. You could go with evens at the 3 which I think should be is position, but if you go big, you might as well go huge. If someone gets by favors on the wing. so what, gobert and kanter.
 
I think our big lineup should be

PG - Hayward
SG - Evans
SF - Favors
PF - Kanter
C - Gobert

Now that's a big lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top