The Bench is not the Problem

[e-Man]

He was advertised as lengthy and talented.  The primary weakness of Boston this year is the lack of a consistent 6th man (primarily offensively, though a 6th man doesn't necessarily have to be a scorer, he just needs to be very consistent in his role).

I would give Giddens a real shot - he's 23 or so, not 19, so should have SOME level of maturity right off the bat.  Either he's going to contribute, or he'll be gone, but it's time to test the theory of his potential with some reality minutes.  So here are my drastic changes to the bench over the next 10-15 games, and if they don't work, DA and Doc still have nearly 1/2 the season to solve it.

1) Giddens as 6th man.
2) TA as 7th man, where he belongs.  He currently has too much responsibility and expectation for his low offense IQ.
3) Pruitt as the 8th man and backup point.  About 12 minutes per game - Rondo should be perfectly capable at 36 minutes per game.
4) POB as 9th man, and as primary 5 off the bench.  See 1).  It is time to see what he can do.
5) Powe still getting 12-18 minutes per game.
6) House and Big Baby with significantly reduced playing time.  House is a spot, situational player, who is in way over his head in terms of expectations.  Occasionally fantastic in big spots, but not a 15-20 minutes per game player.

Remember how effective Stuckey was in a major role last year.

It can happen.

As an aside, it is amazing to see Posey shooting over 50% this far into the season.  He's averaging 10 points per game, and playing only 3 more minutes per game than last year.  Is it still legal to lament a bit?

[BballTim]

Anything less than the 1 seed is an absolute disaster, totally unacceptable for a defending champ that could have largely been kept together.

  Why is not getting the 1 seed an absolute disaster? We're still on a mid-60 win pace. Cleveland would need to beat their record from last year by 20+ games to beat us. Not getting to the ECF might be a disaster, or maybe getting a 4-5 seed. Personally, I'm more interested in the playoffs than whether we have the best record in the league during the regular season.

for me, the main concern in not getting the #1 seed would be a 7 game ECF series with CLE that ends in CLE...

pretty far off, though.

  Of course that would be the concern. But "absolute disaster" is still an overreaction.

[CoachBo]

You think we'd be sitting here with 17 today without it?

No way we beat Cleveland last year in game 7 in Cleveland.

[DarkAzcura]

I agree with the original post. I don't think the bench is as bad as it seems really...

Do you think the best benches in the league would be as good as they are if they had to go out there as a 4 man unit or sometimes 5?

The best benches are as good as they are because they have starters mixed in with them and not just one starter either.

We may not play our bench as much as other teams when you add up the minutes, but it definitely feels like we play our bench a ton with how much run they get out there together.

[BballTim]

You think we'd be sitting here with 17 today without it?

No way we beat Cleveland last year in game 7 in Cleveland.

  Last year we needed 7 games to get past a 40 win Hawks team. If you watched the Detroit or the LA series you'd have noticed that our ability to win on the road improved as we gained experience. We're the defending champs, not a collection of players who have never been in the playoffs together. I'm not ready to give up on them yet.

  What if we beat the Cavs in 7 (or 6)? Does that still make not getting the 1 seed an absolute disaster?