NAOS
Well-Known Member
Yes, age. But also his CURRENT defensive impact.
Does Joe have to start?
- Thread starter Rubashov
- Start date
Right, I've personally pushed for Gay to replace Bogey in the closing lineup because of defense, but I'm not seeing any drop off in Bogey's defense this year vs pervious years, if anything I've seen moments of better defense from him this year.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Gay for defense and rebounding.
Moving to the bench is also a good idea for a lot of Bogie’s offense. I like that he’s a three-tier scorer, and I think we should utilize all of that to get buckets, but it can result in some ball-stopping.
Basically, I want him to play his full game...feel his rhythm and force... but off the bench. And I want us to find help on defense using JC as the trade chip. Bogie becomes the microwave. I’ve said this for months, but I got tired of saying it awhile ago... especially when I saw there was very little chance that our FO would make the move. I’m not saying I’m the originator of this idea, but other people have moved into this lane and made it an annoying place. FWIW.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
Anybody see or hear Locke talk about Ingles starting and coming off the bench?
Basically he said the Conley, Mitchell, Ingles, Bogey, Gobert lineup when they first signed Bogey was what he envisioned the Jazz using but it did not work (he used numbers to back that up) in that first year so Quin had to adjust and rarely used it since. BUT he did say based on the last 2 games he thinks he might revisit that lineup at times but not by starting Joe.
He did have some logic to it as well, I mean the last 2 games versus NOP and POR they are not great defensive teams AND that if you kept starting Joe and having him chase around CJ McCollum and Ingram night after night, or LBJ then PG like O'Neal is doing he'd be worn out way too fast to continue to be effective (like what everyone complains Playoff Joe looked like).
So that did give at least an alternative of possibly seeing more minutes with that stating lineup with out actually starting Ingles.
One thing not brought up was in his first 2 starts (CHI and ORL) Joe was pretty bad both defensively and offensively, so out of 4 games starting you have 2 bad games and now 2 good games, so small sample size and also the difference being first 2 games he was replacing Conley. I don't remember his start against ATL when he was in for Mitchell so at best he was probably average, neither good or bad.
Lastly I would like to add that I do think O'Neal can start but that Quin could be more flexible with his minutes, if he is going well and having a good shooting night or a noticeable defensive impact keep him out there getting his 30+min average. But on nights when Ingles, Gay or Bogey have it going they should eat some of his minutes, for reasons already stated in this thread. Basically betwen SF and PF those 4 (Bogey, O'Neal, Ingles and Gay) should get all those minutes and whoever is running better that night gets a few extra minutes.
Basically he said the Conley, Mitchell, Ingles, Bogey, Gobert lineup when they first signed Bogey was what he envisioned the Jazz using but it did not work (he used numbers to back that up) in that first year so Quin had to adjust and rarely used it since. BUT he did say based on the last 2 games he thinks he might revisit that lineup at times but not by starting Joe.
He did have some logic to it as well, I mean the last 2 games versus NOP and POR they are not great defensive teams AND that if you kept starting Joe and having him chase around CJ McCollum and Ingram night after night, or LBJ then PG like O'Neal is doing he'd be worn out way too fast to continue to be effective (like what everyone complains Playoff Joe looked like).
So that did give at least an alternative of possibly seeing more minutes with that stating lineup with out actually starting Ingles.
One thing not brought up was in his first 2 starts (CHI and ORL) Joe was pretty bad both defensively and offensively, so out of 4 games starting you have 2 bad games and now 2 good games, so small sample size and also the difference being first 2 games he was replacing Conley. I don't remember his start against ATL when he was in for Mitchell so at best he was probably average, neither good or bad.
Lastly I would like to add that I do think O'Neal can start but that Quin could be more flexible with his minutes, if he is going well and having a good shooting night or a noticeable defensive impact keep him out there getting his 30+min average. But on nights when Ingles, Gay or Bogey have it going they should eat some of his minutes, for reasons already stated in this thread. Basically betwen SF and PF those 4 (Bogey, O'Neal, Ingles and Gay) should get all those minutes and whoever is running better that night gets a few extra minutes.
He had his best game of the season in the game he started for Mitchell against the Hawks, 19 points on 7-9 shooting and 5-6 from 3. And this isn't just about what's happened in the 5 games he's started this season, this has been going on the past 3 years, he's consistently been better when he starts than when he comes off the bench.
That's pretty bad that a lineup didn't work in the first half of the first season together and you abandon it. It takes time for some ideal lineups to work. Pretty much all the super teams struggled together in their first year, especially early. We didn't play that lineup once last year, which is crazy. We didn't see our 5 best players together once, ouch.
It was the 3rd most played 5 man lineup.
Lineups Advanced | Stats | NBA.com
Ability to view statistics and advanced analytics for any combination of 5-man, 4-man, 3-man, or 2-man lineups that a team has played throughout the season. Lineup information dates back to the 2007-08 season.
2nd unit is still Mike and Joe to command Im pretty sure Bogey won't have fewer touches. JC wouldn't mind too. and this unit will still be effective vs other teams 2nd. otoh Gay adds defense and rebounding in the 1st unit. he may not be that quick but hes big and long and can shoot over his defender. this could be good
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
Trade his croweating dumb arse