Author Topic: What are we doing at SF?  (Read 11226 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2008, 11:12:10 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
There's always Devean George, Walter Herrmann, Ira Newble, Kirk Snyder, Bonzi Wells, Gordon Giricek, Michael Finley, and DerMarr Johnson still available.

All guys 6"-5" to 6'-9" that can play some SF. They may not be great but all we need is 10 minutes a game.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2008, 11:21:07 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
considering we found 24 backup center minutes without a real backup center, i think we'll be able to fill in 13 minutes at small forward per game with Ray, tony, scal and rookies.


that said, i have been really interested in kirk snyder all offseason and would be very happy to grab him.





and btw, pj brown gave us 2.2 and 3.8 in 11.6 minutes during the regular season. we had no backup center. And in the playoffs, he made some clutch plays, but gave us 2.9 and 2.4 in 13.6 minutes in the playoffs. he's replaceable.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2008, 11:25:36 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  Scal and TA both have offensive issues but both are good defenders, especially Tony. They'll probably split time there. Giddens or Walker could also play sf for a few minutes a game. It's nothing to panic about.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2008, 01:11:59 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Name-----   PG   SG   SF   PF   C  Total
Rondo---------34   0    0    0    0    34
Ray-------------0   26    10   0   0   36
Pierce----------0   0    36   0   0    36
Garnett---------0   0    0    28   8   36
Perkins--------0   0    0      0   26   26
Tony------------0   18    2   0   0    20
House---------10   4    0   0   0    14
Pruitt-----------4    0     0    0    0     4
Powe-----------0   0    0   20   0    20
Davis-----------0   0    0   0   10    10
O'bryant--------0   0    0   0    4     4
Scal------------0    0    0   0   0    0
Total----------48   48   48   48   48   240

In the above scenario, the total minutes look good, and KG only plays 8 center minutes per game, tony plays 2 at SF and Ray plays 10 there. Not bad, really. And there's wiggle room in there too.


Jeff, there has to be a better way to insert charts into these forums. I've tried all the tools, can't get anything to lineup. It looks perfect until i click "save."
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 01:31:58 AM by Fan from VT »

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2008, 06:14:12 AM »

Offline xmuscularghandix

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7620
  • Tommy Points: 280
mo walker becuase hes a rookie or becuase he hasn't been signed yet?

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2008, 10:08:09 AM »

Offline BillfromBoston

  • Author
  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 498
  • Tommy Points: 79
This is a non-issue for the start of the season IMO and may very well become a complete non-issue based on the mix of talent and experience at the wings.

Experience:

Pierce/TA/RA/Scal

Talent:

Pierce/RA/TA/Walker/JR

At the end of the day we are discussing 12-15 mpg and the team has the options to play based off situation. If Pierce HAS to play 40 minutes sometimes, no problem. On the whole, the team has talent and experience that can competently play the 3...TA has been traditionally good against all SF's so I  don't know why the idea of his height suddenly became and issue. The team has size at the 3 if it needs it, either with Scal as a defensive vet, or with Walker as a young bull...Giddens length is that of a 6'9 player  as well, so he can challenge shots of basically any 3 in the league.

While the blend of talent, experience,  and size only exists in Pierce, he is the starter and there are very few times where this will pose a problem for the team. It may happen sometimes defensively,  but offensively they more than make up for it.

Bottom line, there is more than enough options at the 3 for this team and it won't be causing the team to lose games any time soon. The regular season will afford the younger players time to improve themselves and come playoff time the whole group should be prepared to play some type of role for this team. Not much is being asked of the younger players anyways.

The thing about James Posey is this, before the Heat won the title, Posey had no experience being a "big shot" player. You have to be in position to make a name for yourself and we have players with the talent to do just that.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2008, 10:33:55 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Just can't bank on rookies, especially ones who were drafted straight into the O.R. Let Walker and Giddens get healthy and play the D league for a year.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2008, 10:48:54 PM »

Offline jdub1660

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1355
  • Tommy Points: 87
Demarr Johnson could come to us cheap. Darius Miles would work to fill in for minutes behind or in front of BWalker if he's ever signed. The idea of Ray sliding over to SF would only happen when Pierce is sitting and that's not alot of game time, so that could work. The reason I still say sign a true SF with talent on both sides of the ball, is that if Pierce went out(knock on wood) then we would be screwed. Our starting 5 would be ruined, and the then big 2 would have to play too many minutes. Read the JR smith thread. My idea is there on how we could utilize a trade for him and get rid of Scal's contract, make use of Sam Cassell before he departs for nothing, AND get rid of our logjam at PF between Powe and BBD. Pierce and JR are both 6'6, and he could be backup for SF or SG if Ray or Paul got hurt. then we would just need an experienced big for cheap...(Theo Ratliff, Mutomobo, Lorenzon Wright..)
Can't stop, Rondo!

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2008, 11:50:48 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan06

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 733
  • Tommy Points: 42
Bonzi and Quinton Ross are the best two options left on the free agent market.  Ross a good defender who has (recently) developed a 3-pt shot and Bonzi good on both sides of the ball (though only 6-5).

Take your pick...(I like both for different reasons)

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2008, 12:13:28 AM »

Offline timepiece33

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1747
  • Tommy Points: 78
Ross is a poor enough offensive player that I don't want him anywhere near this team.   I like his defensive effort, but we have a bench that needs someone with a little more offensive repertoire.  Teams back off him and he rarely delivers.

Wells is someone who might be a good fit.  His game is similar enough to Pierce's that he could be the bench guy that replaces him when needed.  Personally, I'd rather have Kirk Snyder unless the coaches are comfortable that Bonzi will work.   

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2008, 12:14:25 AM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Cs get contributions from Walkers and/or Giddens in their rookie year.  No one expected BBD to have much of an impact his rookie year, and the guy managed to play the 9th most minutes, more than Powe, in the regular season. 

If one of the rookie swingmen has to play 10 minute a night, no problem, as long as a veteran is added in season for the playoffs. 

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2008, 12:55:28 AM »

Offline steelbos

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 37
  • Tommy Points: 4
There is no reason that Giddens and Walker couldn't be used like Davis and Powe were used last year. Whoever deserves the minutes each week could create a good competition between the two.
Many say that Scally is too slow, but I will say that he is very smart and knows how to play team defense. Scal also can shoot the three and if he were given 8-10 minute regularly he would shoot the ball better than he has, and that would help open the lane for TA to drive.
Bottom line, between the three we are OK to start the year with what we got on the wings. If Walker did go to Europe then I would sign a veteran for the bench, and that way we could offer Dikembe the rest of our MLE to get him to come here.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2008, 10:50:26 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15241
  • Tommy Points: 1034
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
"Backup SF by Committee" is not a terrible situation to have, and the team has many options between TA, Scal, Giddens, RA and maybe Walker (if healthy).  I would also throw out the possibility of giving Glen Davis a shot there.  Baby is quicker than most people give him credit for and he has excellent footwork (he is an excellent dancer and has appeared on Dancing With The Stars - check it out on Youtube).  Also Baby has some offensive skills like a mid-range jumpshot, excellent passing and a decent drive to the basket, that he can utilize more at the 3.

This would also make it easier for Doc to just go with Leon Powe as the #3 big man in the frontcourt rotation (which I think he has earned now anyway).

1 - Rondo, House, Pruitt
2 - RAllen, TAllen, Giddens
3 - Pierce, Scal/TA, Davis. Giddens/Walker
4 - KG, Powe
5 - Perkins, POB

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2008, 01:02:12 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
"Backup SF by Committee" is not a terrible situation to have, and the team has many options between TA, Scal, Giddens, RA and maybe Walker (if healthy).  I would also throw out the possibility of giving Glen Davis a shot there.  Baby is quicker than most people give him credit for and he has excellent footwork (he is an excellent dancer and has appeared on Dancing With The Stars - check it out on Youtube).  Also Baby has some offensive skills like a mid-range jumpshot, excellent passing and a decent drive to the basket, that he can utilize more at the 3.

This would also make it easier for Doc to just go with Leon Powe as the #3 big man in the frontcourt rotation (which I think he has earned now anyway).

1 - Rondo, House, Pruitt
2 - RAllen, TAllen, Giddens
3 - Pierce, Scal/TA, Davis. Giddens/Walker
4 - KG, Powe
5 - Perkins, POB



there's no way Davis can play small forward as he currently is. He's just not fast enough. he's nimble for a power forward, but he can't guard lebron, 'melo, etc. also the whole mid range shot is a myth right now. he shot .313% on jumpers last year. He's worse than Powe at the midrange shot.

Re: What are we doing at SF?
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2008, 01:41:48 PM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
Scal was much leaner when he played with the Nets, and more effective. He intentionally put on weight so he could play more 4. He needs to slim down again, if he wants to play decent backup minutes at the 3. There is very little room for him at 4; both Powe and Davis are ahead of Scal in that slot.

Scal should take a cue from Posey, and work incessantly on his 3 point shot in the off-season, in practice and before games. That and lose weight. He is a good defender already, and does a good job of moving the ball around. We just need him to be productive for about 10-15 minutes a game. He is a below par rebounder, but is excellent at boxing out. The fact that he is paid too much is not his fault. He is not a dead weight guy, and those fans who understand the nuances of the game are more likely to appreciate his potential contributions to the team this upcoming season. Stat geeks have a field day bashing him, but his minutes are so few, the numbers are inconsequential.