What's the purpose of the bench? Give rest to GPA and maintain the spread.

[TitleMaster]

And really, that's about it.

The fact of the matter is that we can't expect to go down twenty pts, and make comebacks, in back-to-back games. Yes, it'll happen once (see GM4, 2008 Finals) but it's not a daily expectation.

So what Starbury brings is that Bob MacAdoo touch, where in effect, whenever he's on the court, there'll be a blitz of drives and points; the opponents will have to work on him. If that means that every now and then, Big Baby is open for a jump hook, and SM doesn't feed him, well... so be it. BBD will get his shot on a subsequent possession.

And finally, wouldn't it be nice to have GPA plus RR/Perks fully rested in Q4, and only be down 8-9 points then a full 25? Because let's face it, our starting five, in top physical condition is the best right now. The bench only supplements them; if they keep the spreads tight, then the big 5 can get the job done.

[kenmaine]

Well of course the bench, especially with a starting five this good, only has to hold the lead or be respectable. And our bench is generally a little underrated anyway. But with Scal questionable, TA constantly injured, and Pruitt and the rookies showing pretty much nothing, I guess Danny had to do something. Just don't know if this was the right thing, I'm not crazy about Marbury, and Moore is just ok IMO.

But I wish you wouldn't mention McAdoo here- brings back some bad memories. He did have a really nice shot though.

[CoachBo]

McAdoo. McAdon't. McAwill, McAwon't - Johnny Most.

Gad, this has been a stressful enough week without rekindling the memories of that clown in Celtic green.

[Fafnir]

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan, just like your starting unit. Whether being subbed in due to injury, fouls, or need for a breather it is the same.

Their goal and purpose is the exact same as our starters. They have a different, usually more limited role. Your top players usually determine wins and losses, but your post really goes against how you want your team to look at each other.

[Evantime34]

If a team has a really good bench or 6th man for that matter the bench can be used to take over a game every once in a while.
I expect Marbury to take over games and single handedly take over the scoring load for large stretches of time. There will be a game where he puts the team on his back and they win.

[TitleMaster]

rekindling the memories of that clown in Celtic green.

My MacAdoo comment was geared towards his Laker's stint where he did makes the Celt's defenses work while he was on the court. And believe me, him and Kupchak were key in keeping the differential, in the Laker's favor, while making a *no bench* (unless you believe in Thirdkill) '85 Celts suffer. His stint in Boston, however, was a complete no show.

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan

If I recall, Cassell was not the big distributor in last year's playoffs, he was a guy who'd show up and take a lot of shots. I wouldn't say he'd filled Rondo's shoes as a PG. The difference, however, was that Sam's old, which is what made his shooting, defense, and overall game less palatable. Today, an adept shooter, who make create his own shot, would do fine for the 2nd unit.

[Fafnir]

There will be a game where he puts the team on his back and they win.

I hope there are games like that. I hope he doesn't go out there and abandon team basketball trying to create those games. We need a PG who can defend 2s, shoot, and handle ball pressure. We don't need a chucker.

[Fafnir]

If I recall, Cassell was not the big distributor in last year's playoffs, he was a guy who'd show up and take a lot of shots. I wouldn't say he'd filled Rondo's shoes as a PG. The difference, however, was that Sam's old, which is what made his shooting, defense, and overall game less palatable. Today, an adept shooter, who make create his own shot, would do fine for the 2nd unit.

That was why I didn't like Sam as our backup PG. He took a lot of shots and made too few of them. He also didn't get the team into the offense as effectively as we needed. The team played much better with House as our PG.

Sam was only a positive when House couldn't handle the ball pressure and when his shots went in. Which sadly wasn't too many games.

I'm hoping for better from Marbury, but don't expect better.

[TitleMaster]

There will be a game where he puts the team on his back and they win.

The key is to not have to use this option. The best course is to simply maintain, either the lead or the differential. If an opponent needs to actively work on Starbury, then all and all, we're in good shape. There are plenty of bench droughts and the playoffs are the worst time for them. Like I said, it's ok to come back, 20 down, but let's not make it a habit.

[kenmaine]

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan, just like your starting unit. Whether being subbed in due to injury, fouls, or need for a breather it is the same.

Their goal and purpose is the exact same as our starters. They have a different, usually more limited role. Your top players usually determine wins and losses, but your post really goes against how you want your team to look at each other.

Yes, and in a dream world, we would have ten hall-of-famers on the roster. Win by 40 every game.
Seriously though, of course they have to execute the game plan, but they're bench players for a reason.

[Fafnir]

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan, just like your starting unit. Whether being subbed in due to injury, fouls, or need for a breather it is the same.

Their goal and purpose is the exact same as our starters. They have a different, usually more limited role. Your top players usually determine wins and losses, but your post really goes against how you want your team to look at each other.

Yes, and in a dream world, we would have ten hall-of-famers on the roster. Win by 40 every game.
Seriously though, of course they have to execute the game plan, but they're bench players for a reason.

If you have the mentality of "just get out there and hold onto the lead", or "just keep it close" your team is setup to fail. You need to be confident in your scheme, team, and effort to win on a consistent basis. The results will naturally be less from the bench most nights. The talent is less.

But to say they're just there to give the starting five a little rest and not get beaten too badly is the sort of attitude that lottery teams have.

[TitleMaster]

But to say they're just there to give the starting five a little rest and not get beaten too badly is the sort of attitude that lottery teams have

Neither the '85 nor the '87 Celts had rest for their starters. Max & Henderson were out in '85 and Walton/Sichting, for much of '87. If anything, the names: Thirdkill, Carlisle, Kite, etc were very mute during the mid-80s. The starting five of the Big Three, DJ, and Ainge were the Celtics. Wedman was simply a one trick pony and wasn't tough to guard.

This year, we have BBD, Powe, and House. Add Starbury and Moore and that's effectively a real scoring bench.

[kenmaine]

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan, just like your starting unit. Whether being subbed in due to injury, fouls, or need for a breather it is the same.

Their goal and purpose is the exact same as our starters. They have a different, usually more limited role. Your top players usually determine wins and losses, but your post really goes against how you want your team to look at each other.

Yes, and in a dream world, we would have ten hall-of-famers on the roster. Win by 40 every game.
Seriously though, of course they have to execute the game plan, but they're bench players for a reason.

If you have the mentality of "just get out there and hold onto the lead", or "just keep it close" your team is setup to fail. You need to be confident in your scheme, team, and effort to win on a consistent basis. The results will naturally be less from the bench most nights. The talent is less.

But to say they're just there to give the starting five a little rest and not get beaten too badly is the sort of attitude that lottery teams have.

Last I knew "holding the lead" wasn't the same as "not get beaten too badly" You'd make a good political speechwriter.

[Fafnir]

No that is not the main purpose of the bench. You need your bench to be able to go out and execute the game plan, just like your starting unit. Whether being subbed in due to injury, fouls, or need for a breather it is the same.

Their goal and purpose is the exact same as our starters. They have a different, usually more limited role. Your top players usually determine wins and losses, but your post really goes against how you want your team to look at each other.

Yes, and in a dream world, we would have ten hall-of-famers on the roster. Win by 40 every game.
Seriously though, of course they have to execute the game plan, but they're bench players for a reason.

If you have the mentality of "just get out there and hold onto the lead", or "just keep it close" your team is setup to fail. You need to be confident in your scheme, team, and effort to win on a consistent basis. The results will naturally be less from the bench most nights. The talent is less.

But to say they're just there to give the starting five a little rest and not get beaten too badly is the sort of attitude that lottery teams have.

Last I knew "holding the lead" wasn't the same as "not get beaten too badly" You'd make a good political speechwriter.

I'll ignore that little personal swipe. I'm not sure why you take issue with me using those terms. They were my own words, I wasn't misusing them or misquoting anyone.

It is a matter of degree. What does holding the lead mean? Playing the other team exactly even? Only giving up 2 points of it? Four points? Half the lead?

Whatever the unit is they should be out there playing tough defense, running our plays, and beating the opposition. Prime example from Monday, even up 30 against the Nuggest we played good D and ran our offense. On the other hand we've seen our bench go out there and just try to hold on against the Blazers.

[Fafnir]

But to say they're just there to give the starting five a little rest and not get beaten too badly is the sort of attitude that lottery teams have

Neither the '85 nor the '87 Celts had rest for their starters. Max & Henderson were out in '85 and Walton/Sichting, for much of '87. If anything, the names: Thirdkill, Carlisle, Kite, etc were very mute during the mid-80s. The starting five of the Big Three, DJ, and Ainge were the Celtics. Wedman was simply a one trick pony and wasn't tough to guard.

This year, we have BBD, Powe, and House. Add Starbury and Moore and that's effectively a real scoring bench.

In a very large picture sense you are right. Our starting five is the best in the league, if our bench can hold even we'll win.

But I think its a bad mindset. Once something goes wrong the bench needs to be able to step into the lineup, execute, and win. Not only that but in any single game the bench needs to take advantage. I can think of a lot of games this season where the bench keyed runs to put the game away. (Also sadly they give up runs that put the other team ahead big or back in it)