Thinking about the rotation and depth chart

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Isn't Biedrens one of the historical worst rebounders in the league?

Nope. He is a pretty good rebounder.

Pretty much every year of his career he has had per48 numbers of 14 per game, at least. In his prime he was around 17 per 48 minutes.

 

[just because]

I know this is a strange question, but where have we really gotten that much worse? And haven't we gotten better in some areas?

Are we worse at:

• PG? In my opinion, Mo wasn't particularly adept at running the offense, unless less you count dropping the ball in to Al free throw line extended "getting us into the offense". Burke may be an upgrade, particularly where the strength of this team lies, in running the pnr. Could be a wash or even an improvement. Here's hoping.
• SG? Nope. Can't say we're going to miss Foye there. Rush is an upgrade, and more Burks is an upgrade over Foye.
• SF? Nope. Hayward and Marvin still here. No worse. I wish Jeremy would get some run here. I love that kid.
• PF / C? There's the question mark, but I'm tellin you, had I had to watch Al for another year, I'd have turned in my fan card. We'll certainly be quicker and run the floor better.
• Bench. Yep. Worse. How much. Can't say. I don't think a bench with Alec, Gobert, Jeremy, and even RJ will be any worse than other team's benches. Won't be as good as last year's, but I don't see us going down 20 with them in the game against other benches.
• Defense. Nope. We're WAY better. No Foye, no Al, less Marvin, even Millsap slipped there imo, and now more Jeremy, Favors and Kanter plus Gobert and Rush. We've got a chance to be incredible defensively.

Amen (especially on the watching al jeff for another yr). I have been thinking lately WHAT IF we don't suck? What if we are actually good and compete for a play off spot. We might not even be a player in the lotto rush next year. The young guns may be athletic enough to put us in contention. I guess that would be a good thing.

 

[JohnnyClutch]

How are we going to be tough on defense when Favors can barely stay on the court? Burke isn't exactly a good defender, Hayward does a good job, Rush will hopefully do good, but a lot of that depends on how he recovers from his injury. Kanter is a good post defender, but is average on help defense and doesn't move laterally that well.

I never said we wouldn't be better at defense, I just don't think we'll be great at defense.

Not hard to see from your phrasing why I thought you disagreed and said we wouldn't be better at D. You did say we wouldn't be tough on D, but I'm glad you agree we'll at least be better. And for the record, I said we have a chance to be great at defense. If you don't agree with that fine, but to act like there's no merit to the arguments is ludicrous.

And no, I don't think Gobert and Evans are an upgrade over Jeff and Millsap.

Oh, so we had Jefferson and Millsap coming off the bench last year? Must have missed those games. Compare apples to apples. And yes, with Al in the mix and Millsap's increased apathy towards D, they are better defenders. I think Jeremy is waaay under-rated at D. Everyone says he gets pushed around too much, but as I've watched him he positions himself really well and his length and leaping blocks his fair share and alters quite a few as well.

And by calling Hayward a superior defender, you're essentially calling him an elite defender

su·pe·ri·or [suh-peer-ee-er] adjective

1.higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer.
2.above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.: superior math students.
3.of higher grade or quality: superior merchandise.

elite [ih-leet, ey-leet] noun / adjective
1. the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1 .
5. representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

Hmmmmm, maybe english isn't your primary language and some of its subtleties escape you. If that's the case, then we're cool. But if you think Hayward isn't a superior defender, I present the following as exhibit A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHDA_mZTpgs

Good luck with that.

 

[ekimebirt]

Here is the way I see the rotation

96 minutes between the Center and PF positions.
30 minutes each for Kanter and Favors 12 minutes each for Gobert, Evans and Biendrins with performance and foul trouble impacting any variations. In the long run Marvin will probably get minutes at the 4 when he returns.

96 minutes at the swing 2-3
30 minutes each for Hayward, Rush and Burks (12 at point) 18 minutes split between RJ and Ian Clark till Marvin is back. If RJ and Clark prove totally worthless increase Rush, Hayward and Burks minutes and possibly reduce Burks time at point.

Burke 24 minutes at point with 12 each for Lucas and Burks. DNP McNeil

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Not hard to see from your phrasing why I thought you disagreed and said we wouldn't be better at D. You did say we wouldn't be tough on D, but I'm glad you agree we'll at least be better. And for the record, I said we have a chance to be great at defense. If you don't agree with that fine, but to act like there's no merit to the arguments is ludicrous.



Oh, so we had Jefferson and Millsap coming off the bench last year? Must have missed those games. Compare apples to apples. And yes, with Al in the mix and Millsap's increased apathy towards D, they are better defenders. I think Jeremy is waaay under-rated at D. Everyone says he gets pushed around too much, but as I've watched him he positions himself really well and his length and leaping blocks his fair share and alters quite a few as well.







Hmmmmm, maybe english isn't your primary language and some of its subtleties escape you. If that's the case, then we're cool. But if you think Hayward isn't a superior defender, I present the following as exhibit A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHDA_mZTpgs

Good luck with that.

When I think elite or superior, I think lock-down. I think Hayward is a pretty good defender, but lacks the requisite elite athletic ability to be a lockdown or elite defender.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Here is the way I see the rotation

96 minutes between the Center and PF positions.
30 minutes each for Kanter and Favors 12 minutes each for Gobert, Evans and Biendrins with performance and foul trouble impacting any variations. In the long run Marvin will probably get minutes at the 4 when he returns.

96 minutes at the swing 2-3
30 minutes each for Hayward, Rush and Burks (12 at point) 18 minutes split between RJ and Ian Clark till Marvin is back. If RJ and Clark prove totally worthless increase Rush, Hayward and Burks minutes and possibly reduce Burks time at point.

Burke 24 minutes at point with 12 each for Lucas and Burks. DNP McNeil

Sounds reasonable. Then again, Ty is the coach so who knows what will happen.

 

[JohnnyClutch]

When I think elite or superior, I think lock-down. I think Hayward is a pretty good defender, but lacks the requisite elite athletic ability to be a lockdown or elite defender.

It's endemic to the nature of language that it's hard to communicate intentions precisely. I'll grant you your own connotations; however, there's room between average and elite, and I certainly know the difference between the two. Under the above Webster's definitions, Hayward qualifies as superior, well above average, below elite / lockdown defender. If I'd have meant elite, I would have said so, and I don't need to be berated for, nor have meaning injected into, my statements, which is what Mr. Hantler surely intended.

Perhaps next time, instead of being a total prick, a clarifying follow-up might be in order, such as: "Do you mean to say you think Hayward is an elite / lockdown defender?"

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It's endemic to the nature of language that it's hard to communicate intentions precisely. I'll grant you your own connotations; however, I certainly know the difference between the two. Under the above Webster's definitions, Hayward qualifies as superior, well above average, below elite / lockdown defender. If I'd have meant elite, I would have said so, and I don't need to be berated for, nor have meaning injected into, my statements, which is what Mr. Hantler surely intended.

Perhaps next time, instead of being a total prick, a clarifying follow-up might be in order, such as: "Do you mean to say you think Hayward is an elite / lockdown defender?"

That post was being a total prick?

Believe me, if I wanted to a prick I would have said:

Hey dumbass, when I think elite or superior, I think lock-down. I think Hayward is a pretty good defender, but lacks the requisite elite athletic ability to be a lockdown or elite defender. You big moran.

 

[JohnnyClutch]

Not you. Hantler.

 

[Hantlers]

Everybody knows I'm a prick. You ain't breaking any news here...and that wasn't even one of my prickish posts.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

The interesting question is why so many people also know you have a little prick.

 

[JohnnyClutch]

Hantlers, hey sorry. I got a little carried away.