E'Twaun vs Avery

[mmmmm]

 Bradley defends the PG because he is the best on-ball defender on the floor.  He is definitely capable of defending SGs.

He can't guard Irving.  Fast guys who can dribble can expose that he is not as lockdown as we thought.  Granted he is still good but he has a limitation to who he can guard.

Tell me who HAS successfully guarded Irving over the last month?

Actually I can - for a little over 3 quarters, Bradley contained Irving to just 10 points.  Then in the last 9 minutes Irving managed to post 8 more points during Cleveland's little run to make his numbers against Bradley look more impressive (the final 3 points that Irving scored were on an unguarded 3).

Even with Irving's 'success' Bradley still had him consistently taking 10 seconds or more to bring the ball up.  Where a guy like Irving can still have success is that since he iso's so much, he relies less on his teammates for setting up the offense so even though Bradley may have done his job in chewing up the shot clock, Irving needs less time to still attack the basket since he's not looking for guys to get free for passes.

Part of perimeter defense involves trusting that when you finally do have to release an attacker that your post defense reads which hand you are guiding him to and defends the paint properly behind you. I think a lot of our problems with Irving late in that game had more to do with missed defensive positioning by our bigs.

[PosImpos]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

[guava_wrench]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

I do think Doc can shorten his bench in close games and play his main guys extended minutes, but is this because the replacements are young? Doesn't he do this also when the replacements are vets? Perhaps a more thorough analysis is needed on this one.

Popovich has great discipline with this, but Pop is the exception to the coaching norm. And I'm not sure Pruitt or Giddens fare any better under Pop. Giddens for one was just a really bad pick and most of the GMs probably scratched their head on that one (as they also did with the Rondo pick). Would Harangody have contributed more under Pop? I am skeptical.

TA is probably the best example of someone underused in the Big 3 era but he had been in the league a few years.

[snively]

Bradley's definitely had a great defensive impact.

Of our the top 10 line-ups (in terms of minutes on the court together), the two best defensive ones (by far) feature Avery.  Of course, so does the very worst, but I'd rate his overall defensive impact as very positive regardless. 

[kozlodoev]

He had great success against Nelson and Calderon, and in stretches against Irving. Not so much with Bayless yesterday.

He's got the ability to stay in front of people (much better in this respect than Rondo, I must say), but his decision-making on defense is still a work in progress.

Edit: Also, what is this doing in the Game Threads section?

[dysgenic]

I like both of these guys.  Avery to me looks like he has a chance to be a very good player.  Maybe a 6th man or even a starter in this league.  His jumpshot looks good...even though the results of it have pretty much sucked.  But if he puts it together, we could really have something.  I'm not concerned at all about his defense, it's only going to get better.
E'Twaun offensively looks very poised.  Defensively he looks lost and I'm not sure if he has the athleticism to ever be a good defensive player.  I could see him developing into a Jarrett Jack like backup PG, though.

[kozlodoev]

His jumpshot looks good...even though the results of it have pretty much sucked.

It does? He misses everything by a mile (rim, board, you name it) more often than not.

[guava_wrench]

His jumpshot looks good...even though the results of it have pretty much sucked.

It does? He misses everything by a mile (rim, board, you name it) more often than not.

He is clearly talking about Bradley's shooting form.

[kozlodoev]

His jumpshot looks good...even though the results of it have pretty much sucked.

It does? He misses everything by a mile (rim, board, you name it) more often than not.

He is clearly talking about Bradley's shooting form.

I understand that. You can't miss by that much and "look good" -- I guess we just haven't looked close enough.

[guava_wrench]

His jumpshot looks good...even though the results of it have pretty much sucked.

It does? He misses everything by a mile (rim, board, you name it) more often than not.

He is clearly talking about Bradley's shooting form.

I understand that. You can't miss by that much and "look good" -- I guess we just haven't looked close enough.

Of course someone's form can look good even if they miss by a lot. Ray Allen has plenty of airballs, but his form always looks good. Even when he misses through a game.

A player could push the ball too hard or soft, or not account for the fact that they are drifting left or right. There is so much involved beyond the form.

Is this really something to contest?

[nickagneta]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

Exactly what has that Popovich strategy gained recently?

2 first round exits and a second round exit in the playoffs.

And sure players like DeJuan Blair or George Hill or Tiago Splitter got playing time at the expense of vets but when push came to shove Pop went to the vets for extra minutes in the playoffs and got mixed results because they weren't used to playing the increased amount of minutes on a regular basis.

Also Blair stunk in the playoffs the last two years, his first 2, and Hill was awful his rookie year.

Pop's strategy is no proof that what Doc does is right or wrong. Its just two ways of doing things.

[Celtics4ever]

He had great success against Nelson and Calderon, and in stretches against Irving. Not so much with Bayless yesterday.

He's got the ability to stay in front of people (much better in this respect than Rondo, I must say), but his decision-making on defense is still a work in progress.

I would agree with this and I would add that he sometimes gets out of position on picks.

But as far for him having huge impact only when he was the better physical talent did he have great impact.  Let's wait to see how he does against more A level talent like Westbrook.   I don't think his impact is as great as many here think it is but time will tell.

I think we are showcasing him for a trade.

[Celtics18]

Many people like to talk about Doc not playing young guys, but there is a lack of examples of these same guys succeeding elsewhere.

We've got two examples staring us in the face right now in Bradley and Moore.  If Rondo and Dooling aren't both injured for an extended period at the same time, Moore never gets off the bench and Bradley plays single digit minutes at best.  Now, neither Moore or Bradley are better than Rondo, but I think you can make an argument that both would be better than Dooling or trying to run the offense through Marquis.

Mike

They are both playing.

Oh, for pete's sake.  The point is that the ONLY reason Bradley's playing more than single digits and the ONLY reason Moore is playing at all is that both Rondo and Dooling are hurt.  If either one of those guys was available, neither Bradley nor Moore would be getting the minutes they are now.  But as we've now seen, not only are both guys capable of contributing but playing more minutes has dramatically improved the performance of Bradley.  Avery has gone from being a possible draft bust who MIGHT get better next season to a guy who looks like a genuine back up guard in the NBA.

And let's remember something.  Early in the season Doc was really playing Dooling as a 2 guard and, rather than play Bradley or Moore, he was trying to run the offense with Marquis.  And if Rondo and Dooling don't both go down at the same time, it's almost certain that's what he'd still be doing, no matter how badly it was working.

Mike

 I appreciate what Bradley and Moore have done for us, but I seriously doubt that playing them extended minutes during the first thirteen games would have improved our poor start.

I absolutely understand Doc's choice to put Dooling in the rotation above Moore and Bradley early on.  I do like the way he has worked the young guys in slowly and steadily.  

Doc's got 14 guys on this roster who have seen significant game action this year.  That's a lot to juggle, and I'm sure that many fans won't be easy on him when he doesn't play the guys that they like the required amount of minutes.  

[PosImpos]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

Exactly what has that Popovich strategy gained recently?

2 first round exits and a second round exit in the playoffs.

And sure players like DeJuan Blair or George Hill or Tiago Splitter got playing time at the expense of vets but when push came to shove Pop went to the vets for extra minutes in the playoffs and got mixed results because they weren't used to playing the increased amount of minutes on a regular basis.

Also Blair stunk in the playoffs the last two years, his first 2, and Hill was awful his rookie year.

Pop's strategy is no proof that what Doc does is right or wrong. Its just two ways of doing things.

Pop's strategy has gotten the Spurs great regular season records considering the injury issues they've dealt with to their main guys.  As for the playoffs, the lack of success reflects more on their main players -- who get played much more in the playoffs.  The point is that the Spurs have been able to rebuild the supporting cast for their main players on the fly by playing them significant minutes. 

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

[Celtics18]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

I don't think you've been paying attention so far this season.  Doc's rotations have been very Popovichian, with 14 guys on the roster having played a significant role at some point or another.