Start Green over KG or Pierce (merged thread)

[LooseCannon]

I get the point of the OP, but I feel Ray would do better with the 2nd unit than PP would.

I think PP would do better with the second unit than KG or RA.  One reason is offense.  Garnett and Allen need to be on the floor with Rondo more than Pierce does. 

The idea of Pierce coming off the bench doesn't necessarily stem from a belief that Green is so great, but I'd certainly rather see him start and Pierce come off the bench than have Glen Davis start and KG come off the bench.  One thing that bringing Pierce off the bench does is ensure that either Rondo or Pierce is on the floor at all times to facilitate the offense, since Ainge seems overly resistant to the idea of bringing in a natural point guard who can run the offense for 10-15 mpg while Rondo sits.

Another reason is that it prevents Doc from sitting all of the Big Four at the same time.  We will never see the all-scrub bench lineup in the middle of halves if Pierce is part of the bench.  The second unit will have a steady hand who understands Doc's offensive and defensive systems.

It's interesting enough that it is worth exploring.  Pierce would still play 30+ minutes per game, it would just be configured differently.

[2short]

I think its a great idea to start green at sf for many reasons, none of them are because he is a better player than pierce.
Green at 6'9" shows good low post moves, best guy we have on the block not named shaq.  This changes our offense (especially if jermaine or krstic is center).  Green will run, guy is young and fast, rondo will find him.  He can defend the sf posistion really well and give pierce needed rest.  Pierce turns into manu east, still playing starter minutes but not grinding it out for a whole game.  Paul can create his own offense and anchor the entire 2nd unit.  The move has NOTHING to do with green being better but it improves the team a lot.  Green's productivity would go up and Pauls would stay the same.  I'd still want paul ending games but could see an athletic lineup to finish, rondo, ray, green, pierce and kg.

no to green as starting pf,can't see kg keeping it together to come off the bench, he might chew on ed lecerte's leg!

[KGs Knee]

I get the point of the OP, but I feel Ray would do better with the 2nd unit than PP would.

I think PP would do better with the second unit than KG or RA.  One reason is offense.  Garnett and Allen need to be on the floor with Rondo more than Pierce does. 

The idea of Pierce coming off the bench doesn't necessarily stem from a belief that Green is so great, but I'd certainly rather see him start and Pierce come off the bench than have Glen Davis start and KG come off the bench.  One thing that bringing Pierce off the bench does is ensure that either Rondo or Pierce is on the floor at all times to facilitate the offense, since Ainge seems overly resistant to the idea of bringing in a natural point guard who can run the offense for 10-15 mpg while Rondo sits.

Another reason is that it prevents Doc from sitting all of the Big Four at the same time.  We will never see the all-scrub bench lineup in the middle of halves if Pierce is part of the bench.  The second unit will have a steady hand who understands Doc's offensive and defensive systems.

It's interesting enough that it is worth exploring.  Pierce would still play 30+ minutes per game, it would just be configured differently.

This is perfectly stated. 

Many have lamented our bench woes.  Pierce playing against starters when their energy is waning along with playing against 2nd string players would be in all likely hood, a boon to the bench.

The same have also noted that Pierce is substantially better than Green.  This is true.  I'm not certain how much worse our starting unit would be though.  In theory, the rest of the starters should be able to boost Green's game.

Pierce would still finish games, maybe Green as well in a small-ball lineup with Garnett at C.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to try it out and see if would be effective.

The thing is, getting better bench talent would be the best option.  The problem is, that is unlikely unless we drastically alter the roster (i.e. Big 4).  We either blow it up, or make do with what we got until 2012.

If we stay the same with some minor tweaks, new ideas regarding the rotation are almost unavoidable.  Having these all-bench units kill us.  Minutes among the Big 4 must be more wisely and evenly spread out.  Even if the starters stay the same, guys need to come out at different intervals to keep the starters on-court more often while still limiting their individual minutes.

[wiley]

yes if Green is still around (may lose him depending on new CBA), I'd like to see him start.  It makes perfect sense if you want to maximize him....meanwhile, if Pierce's pride can take it, you'll lose nothing from him, as he can still play the same number of minutes...

Of course Pierce is better...that's not the issue (how much better is Jason Terry than Stevenson for example)..

[Roy H.]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

[Evantime34]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

I think we should start Green.

Realizing that our 1-4 was one of the best units in the NBA, we should still end with them. By starting Green we would be lessening Paul's minutes so he is more fresh at the end of a game. By virtue of having Pierce play more with the second unit Ray's minutes go down (because he doesn't need to play with the second unit now).

The idea behind this is, Green is a lot more useful to us when he starts and plays with as many members of the big four as possible.

Pierce on the other hand is best scoring 1 on 1 so his usefulness would be just as great if not greater coming off the bench.

The only way I advocate Green starting is if the rotation works so that JO + the big 4 finishes the game.

[wiley]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

It's an interesting question.  I can see the if it's not broke don't fix it argument.  However, I think starting a hungry young player who's a good passer between two of our three geriatrics could pay dividends and offer a bit of balance to our aging squad.  I also think Pierce would potentially relish the role....and of course he'll be finishing.  The starting unit with Green would be a bit more aggressive defensively (Green won't have to preserve any energy with a guy like Pierce behind him), a bit more fast breaking, and a bit more Ray focused.  Let's see what Ray can do with more plays run for him, and KG may get a bit more focus too at the start of games....

[Celtics18]

I get the point of the OP, but I feel Ray would do better with the 2nd unit than PP would.

I think PP would do better with the second unit than KG or RA.  One reason is offense.  Garnett and Allen need to be on the floor with Rondo more than Pierce does. 

The idea of Pierce coming off the bench doesn't necessarily stem from a belief that Green is so great, but I'd certainly rather see him start and Pierce come off the bench than have Glen Davis start and KG come off the bench.  One thing that bringing Pierce off the bench does is ensure that either Rondo or Pierce is on the floor at all times to facilitate the offense, since Ainge seems overly resistant to the idea of bringing in a natural point guard who can run the offense for 10-15 mpg while Rondo sits.

Another reason is that it prevents Doc from sitting all of the Big Four at the same time.  We will never see the all-scrub bench lineup in the middle of halves if Pierce is part of the bench.  The second unit will have a steady hand who understands Doc's offensive and defensive systems.

It's interesting enough that it is worth exploring.  Pierce would still play 30+ minutes per game, it would just be configured differently.

This would be pretty revolutionary for Doc Rivers, but I do like a lot of the aspects of this notion.  

For this to be successful, Jeff Green would have to focus on working to turning himself into a lock down defender at the small forward position.  If he can start games on guys like James, Durant, and Anthony, and do a good job, it would really save on Paul if he could come in and not have to guard guys of that ilk for the entire first quarter and risk foul trouble.  

I also get the argument that our big four has been the best top four together in basketball for the past four seasons so why would you ever mess with that unit?  A lot would depend on Paul's willingness to accept that role, as well.

Paul Pierce for sixth man of the year.  I kinda like the sound of that, though.  

[chambers]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

I just don't see Pierce getting through 3-4 potential playoff series having to guard the number one SF's on each playoff team in the East.

through rounds 1-3 of the conference finals is one of the following(most likely).
Joe Johnson
Carmelo
Lebron
Deng

For one series, no problem.
But once we potentially reach 2nd round and then the ECF, is Pierce really going to have enough left in the tank to guard these guys and then perform offensively at his age?
We wouldn't have even reached the ECF yet and have him guard Durant.

For me it's start Green (at least for a while to test it out).
Or reduce Pierce's minutes drastically.
Pierces 1v1 offense is still some of the best in the league, so coming off the bench he could still score 15 ppg like Jamal Crawford. To fully utilize Green, he has to be out there with better players.

[Roy H.]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

It's an interesting question.  I can see the if it's not broke don't fix it argument.  However, I think starting a hungry young player who's a good passer between two of our three geriatrics could pay dividends and offer a bit of balance to our aging squad.  I also think Pierce would potentially relish the role....and of course he'll be finishing.  The starting unit with Green would be a bit more aggressive defensively (Green won't have to preserve any energy with a guy like Pierce behind him), a bit more fast breaking, and a bit more Ray focused.  Let's see what Ray can do with more plays run for him, and KG may get a bit more focus too at the start of games....

I guess I disagree that Green is "hungry" or a "good passer"; he's a passive player (both here and in OKC) who averaged less assists per minute than Shaq, Perk, Semih, or BBD.  I think our offense is already balanced; it's not like it's Pierce-centric. 

If Jeff Green is as good as people say he is, he should be able to play off the bench.  I do agree that Doc needs to do a better job mixing in his starters with his bench (I've been harping on this for four years, I think).  At the same time, I think that it hurts the team by weakening the starting unit.

People talk about how it's important to finish strong, and they assume that saving our big guns for later in the game will prevent that.  However, one of the reasons we're building leads in the first place is because our starters are so much better than everyone else's.  If you take away that advantage and start falling behind early, it's going to be counterproductive to winning.

[Roy H.]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

I just don't see Pierce getting through 3-4 potential playoff series having to guard the number one SF's on each playoff team in the East.

through rounds 1-3 of the conference finals is one of the following(most likely).
Joe Johnson
Carmelo
Lebron
Deng

For one series, no problem.
But once we potentially reach 2nd round and then the ECF, is Pierce really going to have enough left in the tank to guard these guys and then perform offensively at his age?
We wouldn't have even reached the ECF yet and have him guard Durant.

Pierce played well in both the playoffs last year (when we played four series) and this year.  People are trying to solve a theoretical problem that doesn't really have a basis in reality.

[Celtics18]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

It's an interesting question.  I can see the if it's not broke don't fix it argument.  However, I think starting a hungry young player who's a good passer between two of our three geriatrics could pay dividends and offer a bit of balance to our aging squad.  I also think Pierce would potentially relish the role....and of course he'll be finishing.  The starting unit with Green would be a bit more aggressive defensively (Green won't have to preserve any energy with a guy like Pierce behind him), a bit more fast breaking, and a bit more Ray focused.  Let's see what Ray can do with more plays run for him, and KG may get a bit more focus too at the start of games....

I guess I disagree that Green is "hungry" or a "good passer"; he's a passive player (both here and in OKC) who averaged less assists per minute than Shaq, Perk, Semih, or BBD.  I think our offense is already balanced; it's not like it's Pierce-centric. 

If Jeff Green is as good as people say he is, he should be able to play off the bench.  I do agree that Doc needs to do a better job mixing in his starters with his bench (I've been harping on this for four years, I think).  At the same time, I think that it hurts the team by weakening the starting unit.

People talk about how it's important to finish strong, and they assume that saving our big guns for later in the game will prevent that.  However, one of the reasons we're building leads in the first place is because our starters are so much better than everyone else's.  If you take away that advantage and start falling behind early, it's going to be counterproductive to winning.

I think that what people like about this concept is that if Rondo, Allen, and Garnett come into the season healthy and playing at a top level, and if JO can be the anchor in the middle, we've still got enough fire power in the starting unit to be dominant early in games.
 
  The team generally doesn't put the ball in Paul's hands as much early in games and ask him to be a creator.  In the last couple of seasons, he's been more of an off-the-ball guy to start with Rondo doing most of the playmaking.  He's gotten pretty darned good at it, but his versatility really would give our team an edge of the bench where we were pretty lousy this past season.

Knowing Doc, I doubt it will happen, but for now it's a fun concept to play around with.   
 

[2short]

Our starting unit -- at least four of them -- have tremendous chemistry together.  Collectively, they were statistically the most effective unit in the NBA last year.  If we weaken our starters, we weaken our team.

Jeff Green needs to adjust to a bench role.  He's a big boy, he's going to have to handle it.  It's Danny's job to find more talent for the bench.

There's plenty of time for Jeff Green to start in the future.  Right now, if the team cares about winning, they'll keep our starters intact.

I just don't see Pierce getting through 3-4 potential playoff series having to guard the number one SF's on each playoff team in the East.

through rounds 1-3 of the conference finals is one of the following(most likely).
Joe Johnson
Carmelo
Lebron
Deng

For one series, no problem.
But once we potentially reach 2nd round and then the ECF, is Pierce really going to have enough left in the tank to guard these guys and then perform offensively at his age?
We wouldn't have even reached the ECF yet and have him guard Durant.

Pierce played well in both the playoffs last year (when we played four series) and this year.  People are trying to solve a theoretical problem that doesn't really have a basis in reality.

paul really did seem to be in 3rd gear against the heat, actually the whole team except rondo seemed a step behind

[JohnBagleyValueMeal]

People need to stop talking about what Jeff Green could be. He is the player he is. He's about to turn 25 years old. He's played 5 full seasons in the league. The idea that he hasn't had a chance to show the player he could be is crazy--if he was good enough to be a great player, he'd already be a great player.

I think people need to stop thinking of Green as a potential all star and start thinking of him as a Rick Fox type (though not as good defensively). A solid role player. An asset, sure. But that's it.

Not that it really matters with Miami looking the way they do right now. I don't think there is a short term future in the East.

[Celtics18]

People need to stop talking about what Jeff Green could be. He is the player he is. He's about to turn 25 years old. He's played 5 full seasons in the league. The idea that he hasn't had a chance to show the player he could be is crazy--if he was good enough to be a great player, he'd already be a great player.

I think people need to stop thinking of Green as a potential all star and start thinking of him as a Rick Fox type (though not as good defensively). A solid role player. An asset, sure. But that's it.

Not that it really matters with Miami looking the way they do right now. I don't think there is a short term future in the East.

I don't really think anyone is looking at Jeff Green as more than what you describe him as.  Guys like that can be valuable pieces on a contender.  Look at what Luol Deng is doing in Chicago, for example.