I have to agree but actually you want that to happen this year. You wanna see the core group compete and develop down the stretch and the bench guys to lose the games. And next year I wouldn't have any problems with Alec and Enes of the bench if we have better players. Than you would not just have a solid bench but a great one because we saw them compiting against other starters. That should be the goal in my opinion.
I'm just talking about what should be done if we want to win games. That's precisely why the decisions that have been made, are being made.
I have seen quite a few games that burks didn't finish.......... yet Hayward, favors, and trey finish pretty much all of them, so maybe being a starter gives a player a better chance to finish as well.
Umm lol. There is no statistical backing behind this. Also, most 6th men finish with the starters. Haven't you ever see James Harden play (back when he was with OKC)? Or Manu? C'mon dude.
Btw im sorry that you are having a hard time discussing this with me. I think it is a valad argument (burks starting) but you apparently believe that under no circumstance (barring injury) should burks ever start.
Depends how our players develop. If we start Burke Burks Hayward Favors Kanter next season, that is a total of 4 above average offensive players (pending if Kanter pulls his head out of his ***) that need a good amount of touches. How would you divvy up the touches between those 5 players? Keep in mind that Burke will need the rock considerably, as he is the best passer, and the most capable of getting the others in their 'spots'.
This is where the problem starts. Burks is awesome, but he needs touches to be effective. He needs the ball in his hand-- he plays quite well off-the-wall (particularly with Burke) but his offensive game is demanding of touches. Plain and simple. So we can either leave him with the starters, and limit how many touches he gets; or we can limit how many touches Hayward gets (our best player), or Kanter, or Burke. Are you seeing the problem?
So it comes down to this: There are too many capable ball-handlers for them to share all of their minutes together, so it makes most sense to spread them out over the full 48 minutes, for maximum team effectiveness. You can wish for all of them to start, and Burks to get pulled at the 8-minute mark (only to be put in again later) but to me that seems retarded. Just bring him off the bench, and let him finish games. The reason I chose Burks, is because his game is best-suited for 6th man duties in comparison to Burke, or Hayward. I wouldn't bring Burke off the bench because he is a heady, collected point-guard that sets the tone for the team, and is much more capable of getting the others in their sports than Garrett is. No one EVER brings their best point-guard off the bench; but people OFTEN bring combo-guards off the bench as sixth men.
I mean if burks started averaging 30 pts per game off the bench (I know its unrealistic but just humor me) then you would just say "he is playing so good from the bench so why change it"....... if burks starts sucking worse than ever then you can just say "see he isn't good enough to start".
What would have to happen for you to ever say that maybe burks should start? get rid of everyone on the team who can score so that the starting lineup would need some scoring? would that do it?
4 things could happen:
1) He would need to show us that he can excel in a starting-unit that wouldn't give him as many touches with Hayward around 2)He would need to outplay Hayward on both ends of the court 3)RJeff would need to show us that he could contribute in scoring while coming off the bench as well 4)Our floor-spacing doesn't become a ****-show when Burks is on the floor.
