How bad would this be for our starting lineup if we wanted to?

[Aeacus]

It'd be awful. KG cannot guard SFs anymore, he hasn't spent any time playing small forward in almost ten years. Pierce also isn't a good match up for many 2 guards in this league anymore. Quick shooters like Ben Gordon would cause him a lot of trouble.

Having Pierce and KG play out of position is a bad idea. I have no problems with a Perk/Sheed lineup though.

QFT.  We'd have bad defensive matchups at 3 out of five positions.  It would only work if someone else was trying to go huge on us. Why would they bother when they know we have 3 7 footers to match?

[jdub1660]

No no no. When a team puts a lineup on the floor that is slow, you got with a quicker lineup that can defend. If Cleveland is ever dumb enough to put Mo,Bron,Varaejo,Shaq and Z on the floor at the same time...then we keep our starting 5(maybe swap Perk with Sheed) and we run the floor with oops and easy fast breaks with Ray and Rondo. Hell, you could add in a couple more bench guys and beat that line up senseless. Eddie and Marquis plus Ray/Pierce with BBD and Sheed. Run a fast break and jack up open 3's b/c Shaq,Vajo, and Z are still under the basket on the other end of the court

[slamtheking]

No no no. When a team puts a lineup on the floor that is slow, you got with a quicker lineup that can defend. If Cleveland is ever dumb enough to put Mo,Bron,Varaejo,Shaq and Z on the floor at the same time...then we keep our starting 5(maybe swap Perk with Sheed) and we run the floor with oops and easy fast breaks with Ray and Rondo. Hell, you could add in a couple more bench guys and beat that line up senseless. Eddie and Marquis plus Ray/Pierce with BBD and Sheed. Run a fast break and jack up open 3's b/c Shaq,Vajo, and Z are still under the basket on the other end of the court

When I threw that out as a possible reason to use the OP's suggested line-up, I wasn't recommending that it be used, just as an example of a rare situation when it may be a viable option. 


Your proposal is certainly another approach and not one that wasn't considered.  it just wasn't what was originally proposed.  But since you've brought it up, I have to disagree that it would be as effective as you make it.  That lineup has no rebounders against that particular Cavs lineup.  Shaq, Z and Varajao would most likely still be under the basket becuase they just put in an offensive rebound.  they'd probably also be fronting the inbounder to prevent a quick pass downcourt if the C's had someone out and running--->which is not likely since that C's lineup would have to gang-rebound to have any shot of getting the defensive board. If, and it's a big if, the C's were able to get a rebound and fastbreak with numbers, the last thing I'd want them doing is "Run a fast break and jack up open 3's".  You run a fastbreak to get layups or easy, close-in shots.  I never understood the mentality of running a fastbreak so that you can immediately jack up a 3.  makes no sense.

[slamtheking]

I must be a on crack.     I missed the part in the title about changing the starting lineup.  I misinterpreted it to mean just using the lineup, not changing the starting lineup.  My stupidity. 

Changing the starting lineup to this lineup -- very bad.  Using it situationally, it may have limited potential.

[mgent]

No no no. When a team puts a lineup on the floor that is slow, you got with a quicker lineup that can defend. If Cleveland is ever dumb enough to put Mo,Bron,Varaejo,Shaq and Z on the floor at the same time...then we keep our starting 5(maybe swap Perk with Sheed) and we run the floor with oops and easy fast breaks with Ray and Rondo. Hell, you could add in a couple more bench guys and beat that line up senseless. Eddie and Marquis plus Ray/Pierce with BBD and Sheed. Run a fast break and jack up open 3's b/c Shaq,Vajo, and Z are still under the basket on the other end of the court

LeBron would destroy Ray.
Varejao is too tall for Pierce.
And Shaq would absolutely kill KG/Rasheed.
I don't think Doc would ever put in a line-up designed to score specifically with fast breaks, while leaving ourselves completely open on the other side of the court.  Defense first.
Plus, I'm not sure how effect fast breaks would even be as long as they have Mo and LeBron on the court.  They're just as fast as Rondo/Ray/Paul.

[Toine43]

Perhaps a lineup featuring Ray, Pierce, KG, Sheed, and Perk could be used for an end-of-game,  last-second-shot situation to create offensive mismatches all over the court. Defensively it couldn't really hold up but I wouldn't mind seeing KG or Sheed posting up a small forward at the end of the game and taking the last shot.

[screwedupmaniac]

"How bad would this be for our starting lineup if we wanted to?"

Very, very, bad. When healthy, we have the best defensive starting 5 in the league, and one of the most effective offensive starting 5's in the league. Why would we want to change that?

[QuinielaBox]

Pierce getting turned over at SG time and again?

YUCK!

Perkins picking up 3 PF in three minutes against Power Forwards - no thanks.

KG is not a SF anymore, lose that thought.

How good a defender is Rasheed Wallace??

Where do you work in Ray Allen?

Don't use this as a SL.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I wonder why people keep questioning Rasheed Wallace defensively. He's a very good defender. Of course, not what he used to be particularly in the PF role with the more mobile players that can play a bit away from the basket. But he's still a very smart defender and a good post defender.

[Who]

I wonder why people keep questioning Rasheed Wallace defensively. He's a very good defender. Of course, not what he used to be particularly in the PF role with the more mobile players that can play a bit away from the basket. But he's still a very smart defender and a good post defender.

I'm not convinced he's a very good defender overall anymore.

I think he's still very good when he's around the rim ... but poor when he's taken away from the rim, especially his pick and roll defense. Similar problems as Shaq has, although not quite as severe. His legs just don't move as well as they used to.

I think he's still a good defender, but no longer a very good one.

[Fafnir]

I wonder why people keep questioning Rasheed Wallace defensively. He's a very good defender. Of course, not what he used to be particularly in the PF role with the more mobile players that can play a bit away from the basket. But he's still a very smart defender and a good post defender.

I'm not convinced he's a very good defender overall anymore.

I think he's still very good when he's around the rim ... but poor when he's taken away from the rim, especially his pick and roll defense. Similar problems as Shaq has, although not quite as severe. His legs just don't move as well as they used to.

I think he's still a good defender, but no longer a very good one.

Which is why he's going to be our backup Center in my mind.

Still the difference in his defense and rebounding compared to BBD even though both of those skills have declined is huge.

[xmuscularghandix]

it could matchup against bigger stronger lineups at times, but theres not a team in the league that wouldn't smoke that lineup. Plus it's silly to put on of the best defensive players ever out of position where he is a liability. But situationally it could be a cool look.

[Jon]

Again, for all the slack people are giving KG about playing the 3, I don't see how anyone thinks he'd be any worse defending the 3 than Walker or Giddens.  This guy, after all, is the best defender in the NBA.  And with his height, he could stay a step off quicker 3s and still get a hand in their face. 

Between House and Daniels, they should be able to cover most of the backup minutes at the 1-3.  However, if the odd 5 minutes pop up in a game that matters at the 3, I'd rather see KG slide to the 3 for 5 minutes and have Baby get a few extra minutes at the 4, than see Walker or Giddens get those 5 minutes.  (Keep in mind, I'm talking about games that matter, not blow outs in November.)  (Also, we're talking about KG playing 5 minutes per game at the 3, not 40, so I don't see how the "wear on his body" issue even comes into play.)

[mgent]

Again, for all the slack people are giving KG about playing the 3, I don't see how anyone thinks he'd be any worse defending the 3 than Walker or Giddens.  This guy, after all, is the best defender in the NBA.  And with his height, he could stay a step off quicker 3s and still get a hand in their face. 

Between House and Daniels, they should be able to cover most of the backup minutes at the 1-3.  However, if the odd 5 minutes pop up in a game that matters at the 3, I'd rather see KG slide to the 3 for 5 minutes and have Baby get a few extra minutes at the 4, than see Walker or Giddens get those 5 minutes.  (Keep in mind, I'm talking about games that matter, not blow outs in November.)  (Also, we're talking about KG playing 5 minutes per game at the 3, not 40, so I don't see how the "wear on his body" issue even comes into play.)

You make an excellent point.  I'd probably even rather have KG than Daniels on some guys.  Still, our best bet would probably be leaving KG at PF and bringing in Scal, who isn't an excellent defender, but certainly better than Walker.

[Jon]

Again, for all the slack people are giving KG about playing the 3, I don't see how anyone thinks he'd be any worse defending the 3 than Walker or Giddens.  This guy, after all, is the best defender in the NBA.  And with his height, he could stay a step off quicker 3s and still get a hand in their face. 

Between House and Daniels, they should be able to cover most of the backup minutes at the 1-3.  However, if the odd 5 minutes pop up in a game that matters at the 3, I'd rather see KG slide to the 3 for 5 minutes and have Baby get a few extra minutes at the 4, than see Walker or Giddens get those 5 minutes.  (Keep in mind, I'm talking about games that matter, not blow outs in November.)  (Also, we're talking about KG playing 5 minutes per game at the 3, not 40, so I don't see how the "wear on his body" issue even comes into play.)

You make an excellent point.  I'd probably even rather have KG than Daniels on some guys.  Still, our best bet would probably be leaving KG at PF and bringing in Scal, who isn't an excellent defender, but certainly better than Walker.

Thank you.  The Scal idea would work too; however, the idea of sliding KG to the 3 appeals to me partially because it opens up a few extra minutes for Baby at the 4.  Playing Scal would eliminate that. 

To me, Baby is a better player than Walker, Giddens, or TA; yet he's going to have trouble finding more than 10 mpg at the very crowded 4/5 spots.  If playing KG 5-8 mpg at the 3 opens up 5-8 mpg more for Baby and keeps TA off the court, I'm all for it.