What's new
By:

Watson May Not Be Back When Camp Starts

I'd rather have good ball handling and running a team well from my PG than stellar defense. I'd much rather have a defensive center like Favors. As a result Tinsley is a little higher on my list than Earl (at least he was last year) but Earl brings good stuff as well that can help us win.
 
I am with about half of the board. i hope that when he does come back from injury the rotations will already be set. a point gaurd that cant really shoot or drive to the rim isnt much help. especially with alot of young guys. the need a good leader out there. i think watson does his best work from the sidlines. he is always up and off the bench to give pointers during time outs and stuff.
 
Good thing we haven't released Braille. If Foye plays minutes at the point, Corbin is going to need Braille's "veteran leadership" at the 2. No reason to resort to playing Burks. Corbin is a Sloan disciple: Vets are good; young guys are bad.
 
@JJAS:
Hayward is definitely going to be playing quite a few minutes at the 3. He can. He should.
 
i agree with billy, foye-at-point is destined to fail... just like it has every other time in his career that teams have tried to play him like one.

PG is by far our weakest spot on the depth chart with or without watson. if mo ever gets hurt (something that's not, ya know, out of the question - 108 career games lost to injury, or 12 per season) we are totally screwed at PG.

we have a clear-cut starter (but even he does not have a distributor's mentality), two subpar veteran backups, and a bunch of guys we think can play the point in a pinch, like burks or foye. obviously hayward is a very good creator (probably the best on our roster right now, which is actually kind of scary) but even he is only going to have so many opportunities to be the initator.

i would LOOOOOOVE to get a more traditional PG as the backup.
 
NAOS said:
@JJAS:
Hayward is definitely going to be playing quite a few minutes at the 3. He can. He should.
Click to expand...

So does he take minutes from Marvin Williams, Millsap, or even worse Favors, since that means more Millsap at the 4 if he's not at the 3? I've hear a lot of people throwing around that this or that person can play positions, but nobody has said where the minutes come from. I assume that Millsap, Favors, Hayward, and Jefferson will all have around 30-34 minutes/game. I assume that Mo and Marvin will have 26-30 minutes/game and that Kanter and Burks will have 15-20 minutes/game. When you look at the minutes and the distribution, you cannot have this above and play Foye at all unless he is at the PG position. I'm not making an argument--simply doing math. I'd like to see another way if there is one.
 
JJAS said:
So does he take minutes from Marvin Williams, Millsap, or even worse Favors, since that means more Millsap at the 4 if he's not at the 3? I've hear a lot of people throwing around that this or that person can play positions, but nobody has said where the minutes come from. I assume that Millsap, Favors, Hayward, and Jefferson will all have around 30-34 minutes/game. I assume that Mo and Marvin will have 26-30 minutes/game and that Kanter and Burks will have 15-20 minutes/game. When you look at the minutes and the distribution, you cannot have this above and play Foye at all unless he is at the PG position. I'm not making an argument--simply doing math. I'd like to see another way if there is one.
Click to expand...

I see your point. This is precisely why I've contended that we are not in a "offseason holding pattern." In other words, I've stubbornly stuck to the idea that somebody in the front court was going to get traded. I'm still sticking to that.... and I'm prepared to look stupid/wrong.

As for the situation at the 3: Hayward can play there at a fairly high level. Basically, I expect him to split his time pretty evenly at the 2 and 3. I come to this conclusion based on performance alone. Millsap only needs to get about 7 minutes a game at SF in order for Favors to get his 30 min/game.

We need to play Jefferson less than 34 min/game in order to get Kanter some burn (or just ****ing trade Al). I'd like to see Al capped at 28 + see Burks get a handful of minutes at the PG.
 
Last edited:
theNBAnerd said:
i agree with billy, foye-at-point is destined to fail... just like it has every other time in his career that teams have tried to play him like one.

PG is by far our weakest spot on the depth chart with or without watson. if mo ever gets hurt (something that's not, ya know, out of the question - 108 career games lost to injury, or 12 per season) we are totally screwed at PG.

we have a clear-cut starter (but even he does not have a distributor's mentality), two subpar veteran backups, and a bunch of guys we think can play the point in a pinch, like burks or foye. obviously hayward is a very good creator (probably the best on our roster right now, which is actually kind of scary) but even he is only going to have so many opportunities to be the initator.

i would LOOOOOOVE to get a more traditional PG as the backup.
Click to expand...
You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a guy is playing PG that he must be used like a PG. This is simply not the case. We don't really have a good idea if Hayward or Burks can be a good creator, because they have rarely been used that way. They both have the skill set to be that guy. I just don't know if they can excel at it.
 
gregbroncs said:
You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a guy is playing PG that he must be used like a PG. This is simply not the case. We don't really have a good idea if Hayward or Burks can be a good creator, because they have rarely been used that way. They both have the skill set to be that guy. I just don't know if they can excel at it.
Click to expand...


no, but i AM stuck on the idea that we need at least one consistent, reliable playmaker on this team. teams that don't have that are generally not very efficient offensively. since i don't think we're going to set the league record for defensive efficiency, we kind of need to be able to hang our hat on the offensive end for now, and i'm not sure how we're going to do that with a roster full of guys who have not established themselves as reliable offensive facilitators.
 
NAOS said:
I see your point. This is precisely why I've contended that we are not in a "offseason holding pattern." In other words, I've stubbornly stuck to the idea that somebody in the front court was going to get traded. I'm still sticking to that.... and I'm prepared to look stupid/wrong.

As for the situation at the 3: Hayward can play there at a fairly high level. Basically, I expect him to split his time pretty evenly at the 2 and 3. I come to this conclusion based on performance alone. Millsap only needs to get about 7 minutes a game at SF in order for Favors to get his 30 min/game.

We need to play Jefferson less than 34 min/game in order to get Kanter some burn (or just ****ing trade Al). I'd like to see Al capped at 28 + see Burks get a handful of minutes at the PG.
Click to expand...


i agree with both of you (which sounds weird since in some respects you're on different sides of this conversation), but my solution is to look at it less in terms of position. since the 2/3 and 4/5 positions are basically interchangeable, i don't really worry too much about who's playing where as long as our best players are getting minutes. in most cases, that means you're going to have a 4-man big rotation, a 4-man wing rotation and 2 points. the bigs are going to be al, paul, derrick and enes, with enes probably staying stuck in that 15-mpg role. the wings are going to be gordon, marvin, burks and foye. sometimes that will involve gordon at the 3 (whenever marvin sits) and sometimes gordon will be at the 2... but it kind of doesn't matter.

i'm also with NAOS... in an ideal world, we have one more move looming. but time is running out, and so is my hope that the FO sees it like i do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top