A slight change in back court rotations

[pshn80]

I’ve found reason to beef about the back court ball handling, movement, passing, all those things that go into the initial half court offense. What seems to be missing is a plan or capacity to carry out a plan, necessary attitude to work to get people open shots. It’s easy and accurate to say our shooting from out side of 10 feet is poor. It is but I believe most of it is taking poor shots, low percentage shots, desparation shots because one can’t get open. I have referred to it as a lack of BBIQ. But whatever you call it, it shows it’s ugly head all too often.

The ‘back court’ I refer to is the two guards and the SF. I think most of the problem stems from the two guards because they handle and distribute the ball most often. Personnel wise the problem is tough on this team. Our three starters should be the starters. Our two guards are the biggest offenders, the ones that have the biggest problem with solving the team problem.

How do we deal with it? Of the bench players available to help solve or improve on the performance, we have Thomas, Fredette, Garcia, Greene and Honeycutt. Of those I would exclude from those that can help us now Fredette and Honeycutt. That leaves us Thomas, Garcia and Greene. The best instant help is Thomas.

If I was coaching I would try playing starters Evans and Thornton as little as possible toghether. A difficult task with starters but I would continue to start them. I would maximize the time that Thomas, Garcia and Greene are playing with ether Evans or Thornton. Rest the two starters at different times as much as possible. Play them together as little as possible. Especially when our offense begins to get stagnant.

To do this you would have to let those two starters know what you are doing and why. I can’t imagine either would like it but if coach wants do it, it’ll be accepted for enough games to see if it works. You’d yank one or the other, I would suggest trying to do it so we’re not picking on one more than the situation calls for.

Which of the three bench players to go with first or for most minutes would be situational. On the flip side, of course, is to leave the starters together more if it’s working well. If not change it quickly.

I guess I’m saying to give Fredette less playing time for a while but play him.

I think it would help. Let’s give it a try.

 

[BMiller52]

Jimmer's actually been making some pretty nice passes for a while. He could've had 5 or 6 assists in the game vs PHX but guys got fouled or lost the ball, and he was only in there like 16 or 18 minutes. He's had some good games. I think he will continue to get better. I like seeing him out there with Tyreke because i gives Tyreke someone to kick out to when he drives, but also someone that can handle the ball themselves.

 

[TheWileyVet]

Jimmer's actually been making some pretty nice passes for a while. He could've had 5 or 6 assists in the game vs PHX but guys got fouled or lost the ball, and he was only in there like 16 or 18 minutes. He's had some good games. I think he will continue to get better. I like seeing him out there with Tyreke because i gives Tyreke someone to kick out to when he drives, but also someone that can handle the ball themselves.

My thoughts exactly. Good post

 

[rainmaker]

Problem is Thornton has played like crap. He plays better, our backcourt looks much better. Reke played like s*** last game, but has been creating for others at a career high pace recently, and one game doesn't erase the previous winning stretch where he was key.

I don't mind seeing more Reke/IT at all. I'd like it. I don't however see the point in playing our backcourt starters together as little as possible. What sense does that make? We already know how few games they've started together, we know that backcourt, with Salmons/JT/Cousins is 6-2, yet the solution is to play Reke/Thornton together as little as possible to maximize time with Cisco? If Thornton actually plays well, that lineup is probably 7-1.

Thornton playing poorly isn't on Reke. Reke creates a lot of the shots he both makes or misses. Most of the poor shots Thornton takes are his own doing, usually forcing in a selfish way. His lack of defense isn't on Reke either. Thornton needs to decide to commit on defense and look for teammates more. No one can do that for him. Point being, Thorntons poor play is on him, and I don't see how playing him alongside someone else changes that. Still will have the same issues until he improves.

The first paragraph in the OP mentions things which improve with time on the floor together, familiarity and improved chemistry/understanding of the offense. Playing your starting backcourt together as little as possible doesn't help that in any way. It's actually the opposite of what you want, until we add other players to the roster. Also not sure how more of Cisco/Donte improves the IQ out there. I'd say Cisco has horrible basketball IQ which shockingly hasn't improved since his second year. And Donte? He helps us, but in other areas besides smart play.

 

[pshn80]

Good post, rainmaker. I don't disagree but we have our worst back court movement and passing when Tyreke and Thornton are together. Not all the time, of course. Tyreke does set others up but not in the initial seconds of the half court offense. He makes most of his assists off of drives to the basket. I see a big difference between that and starting the offense outside where it always starts. Tyeke isn't bad he just can be quite useless in getting others in the game outside where it all starts. I think that is a significant failing for a point guard, and when your two guard is as bad or worse it's just a problem. This all lead me to my suggestion. Maybe just a subtle change, a tweek. Oh well, play on.

 

[Kingster]

Good post, rainmaker. I don't disagree but we have our worst back court movement and passing when Tyreke and Thornton are together. Not all the time, of course. Tyreke does set others up but not in the initial seconds of the half court offense. He makes most of his assists off of drives to the basket. I see a big difference between that and starting the offense outside where it always starts. Tyeke isn't bad he just can be quite useless in getting others in the game outside where it all starts. I think that is a significant failing for a point guard, and when your two guard is as bad or worse it's just a problem. This all lead me to my suggestion. Maybe just a subtle change, a tweek. Oh well, play on.

I think you're on to something with Tyreke. When Thomas is in there he gets assists off his dribble drives, but also he whips the ball around the perimeter. The ball moves more when he's in the game. As I've said for over a month - Thomas needs more playing time. I like the Tyreke-Thomas backcourt, especially with Thomas starting the offense. Tyreke can still get the ball to do his dribble drive, but I don't want the offense starting with his dribble drive. I'd rather have Thomas whip it to the open man or make a dribble drive of his own, then get it to Tyreke where he will hopefully have the defense less prepared for his dribble drive where he can dish it or make the layup. Also, Thomas is a good enough outside shooter that he spread the floor for Tyreke's drives.

Jimmer is also complementary with Tyreke because of his outside shooting and Tyreke complements Jimmer's lack of defensive prowess. And his pg play is getting incrementally better. At this point, though, IT is a better player, especially on the defensive end.

As others have said, Thornton is really dissapointing. His vision with the ball has been extremely poor. He just has tunnel vision. See basket; shoot. See basket; drive to basket; shoot. That element of his game is not complementary with Tyreke. Yes, his outside shooting is complementary, but the the ballhandling part of his game just isn't. (What I don't understand at all with Thornton is why he has to force every fast break opportunity. He does have a mid-range game. Why not just pull up for the easy open 15 footer rather than force it going all the way to the basket?)

Thornton seems to me the obvious 6th man. He's the gunner that you want in that position. He should come off the bench. IT should start for the simple reason that Tyreke starts and IT is most complementary with Tyreke. So I'd have IT play a lot more with Tyreke; then have Jimmer sub for IT when Tyreke is out there. The tough one is who do you put out there with Thornton? If you go IT, then you have ballhandling, but you have a very short backcourt for defense. If you go Jimmer, you have somewhat less ballhandling, and not a great defensive player right now. IT looks to be the better fit because at least he has the quicks for defense. So the way I look at it IT should get a lot more playing time because he's the most complementary player for both Tyreke and Thornton.

 

[CruzDude]

So far I tend to agree with all the replies in this thread. Saying that I "tend to agree" is due to hesitation to start IT in this compressed, little-practice-with-a-new-coach season. It is a true "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with Thornton-Evans. Both real PGs (Jimmer and Isaiah) are rookies who were starters in college for 2 and 4 years respectively. Jimmer is a shooter-scorer who happens to play PG. IT is a PG who happens to score a bit but was selected 60th in the draft for a reason.

Is there a pony in there somewhere? A solution to the PG conundrum? Beats me but I'll trust Coach to see what might work. It just may not be very quick. Ahh, BWDIK? Summer league this year will be a big deal as i see Jimmer, IT, Honeycitt, Whiteside as the core of that group. You can bet Bajaden and I will be there!!

 

[cuad]

I think one of Tyreke Evans or Marcus Thornton need to be benched so that a real PG can start. I mean we all know what happened for New York when they tried that.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think one of Tyreke Evans or Marcus Thornton need to be benched so that a real PG can start. I mean we all know what happened for New York when they tried that.

Yes, because Benching Tyreke Evans or Marcus Thronton is the same thing as benching Iman Schumpert.

Could Thornton be a 6th man eventually? Maybe. But first you have to get a worthy -- and full sized -- NBA starter in there ahead of him to justify it.

 

[cuad]

Fine. Bench Salmons and put Evans at SF.

 

[Kingster]

Yes, because Benching Tyreke Evans or Marcus Thronton is the same thing as benching Iman Schumpert.

Could Thornton be a 6th man eventually? Maybe. But first you have to get a worthy -- and full sized -- NBA starter in there ahead of him to justify it.

Too much emphasis is on size, not skill. It's very....short-sighted....

 

[Bricklayer]

Too much emphasis is on size, not skill. It's very....short-sighted....

In a contact sport its rarely short sighted. There is a reason the title winners last year started two 7 footers and a 6'4" PG. A reason for Shaq, and Duncan, and Hakeem and Admiral and all the rest always winning. For power guards and power bigs.

 

[Bricklayer]

Fine. Bench Salmons and put Evans at SF.

People have to let that go. It wasn't a good idea in the first place. Now its still not a good idea, but its also blatatnly impossible because Smart has already said he won't play him there. We're rapidly forming up as a power basketball team. And there is no better approach you could take to being a contender one day.

 

[bluntsnbball]

Bottom line for me, i wouldnt mind Smart at least trying it out w/ thornton as the 6th man. Thornton is kind of an instant offense guy, doesnt bring much else, and thats kind of a perfect fit for the 6th man position. I mean, the mavs start f-in delonte west over terry. Smart took a shot putting Thompson in the starting line up, and look how that turned out? I think it definitely couldnt hurt to try it out

 

[pshn80]

Before I originally made this thread I had concluded that with our present roster we are best advised to start Evans, Thornton, and Salmons. Evans because you can't keep him out. Thornton because when he's hot he's hot and he usually scores. Salmons because he is the best SF we have, he's experienced, has played a lot of two and three, he's not a bad defender, he's particularly useful IF you start the other two at PG and SG even if he doesn't score, he helps make up for some of their weaknesses both on offense and defense.

So if you buy that then what do you do when they get into their stinker, start to finish, games? I don't know. Smart may have to resort to bamboo sticks under the fingernails. Hopefully, we will play well in three out of four games from here on out and we won't have to worry about it.

 

[ESP47]

I think Greene should be starting over Salmons. How many good games has Salmons had this year? 2 or so? How many adequate games has he had? Somewhere around 6. The rest of the games he has hurt the team in a big way.

Greene would be a much better player if he had a role other than standing in the corner and waiting to chuck three's. The guy is not a shooter and is just wasting his time bricking 3's left and right. He has some good post up moves that he uses once in a while but for the most part he's just wandering around outside the 3 point line.

Our defense would stay the same or get better with Greene in there. FG% should go up if he plays smart and we wont have those 3 or 4 random possessions where Salmons figures it's his turn to shoot.

 

[Kingster]

In a contact sport its rarely short sighted. There is a reason the title winners last year started two 7 footers and a 6'4" PG. A reason for Shaq, and Duncan, and Hakeem and Admiral and all the rest always winning. For power guards and power bigs.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Shaq, and Duncan, and Hakeem and Admiral aren't point guards. Smallish point guards - CP3 being an obvious example - can succeed in the NBA. Moreover, we don't have a choice between a big pg and a small pg because Tyreke ain't no pg. So, if you're left with IT and Jimmer, who ya gonna call?

 

[Bricklayer]

You're mixing apples and oranges. Shaq, and Duncan, and Hakeem and Admiral aren't point guards. Smallish point guards - CP3 being an obvious example - can succeed in the NBA. Moreover, we don't have a choice between a big pg and a small pg because Tyreke ain't no pg. So, if you're left with IT and Jimmer, who ya gonna call?

People get trapped by defined positions, but there is no such thing as a PG, a SG, a SF , PF or C. Those are made up titles. There are just players with traits, some of which are more important than others. Basketball neophytes, who's conception of basketball might not stray far from shooting hoops in the driveway, are routinely fascinated by the wrong traits. NBA champsions however are routinely fascinated by size, power, and ability to dominate interior and physical play, from ANY position. Guys who can post if they're big, penetrate if they's small, but end up in the lane one way or another. Guys who can rebound and win defensive battles at the other end.

 

[The_Jamal]

In a contact sport its rarely short sighted. There is a reason the title winners last year started two 7 footers and a 6'4" PG. A reason for Shaq, and Duncan, and Hakeem and Admiral and all the rest always winning. For power guards and power bigs.

The Mavericks won because they had insane depth and Dirk went into God mode for the playoffs. Size doesn't mean **** if the players dont have any skill

 

[Glenn]

The Mavericks won because they had insane depth and Dirk went into God mode for the playoffs. Size doesn't mean **** if the players dont have any skill

Oh, man, I respect your opinions but Brick didn't say that "size trumps skill" which I think is what you are implying. Of course they need skill. But the big teams tend to win. The old saying "you can't teach height" always applies. When forced to decide between a tall guy and a short guy of similar skill levels, take the big guy. I hope this plays out in the draft. If given the choice of a SF or a C/PF, take the C/PF even if we may need the SF more. In the end, having an excess of big people is a good thing.

You know this and I'm sure your last sentence was simply an exaggeration for whatever reason you felt the need.

 

[pshn80]

We don't need a point guard, we need players that can handle, distribute, move to enhance their chances and their teammates chances of getting good shots. Get out your Sears catalog.

 

[Kingster]

People get trapped by defined positions, but there is no such thing as a PG, a SG, a SF , PF or C. Those are made up titles. There are just players with traits, some of which are more important than others. Basketball neophytes, who's conception of basketball might not stray far from shooting hoops in the driveway, are routinely fascinated by the wrong traits. NBA champsions however are routinely fascinated by size, power, and ability to dominate interior and physical play, from ANY position. Guys who can post if they're big, penetrate if they's small, but end up in the lane one way or another. Guys who can rebound and win defensive battles at the other end.

Not sure what you mean by "fascinated" here. If you mean "fashioned", then when it comes to the pg position, power and size aren't the primary attributes you want. Quickness and speed are. Size is secondary.

I'm well aware of the deficiencies of categorization. But point guard does serve to cyrstallize what this team needs, and Tyreke doesn't have those attributes in sufficient quantity for this team's success.

 

[Kingster]

Oh, man, I respect your opinions but Brick didn't say that "size trumps skill" which I think is what you are implying. Of course they need skill. But the big teams tend to win. The old saying "you can't teach height" always applies. When forced to decide between a tall guy and a short guy of similar skill levels, take the big guy. I hope this plays out in the draft. If given the choice of a SF or a C/PF, take the C/PF even if we may need the SF more. In the end, having an excess of big people is a good thing.

You know this and I'm sure your last sentence was simply an exaggeration for whatever reason you felt the need.

Problem is, we're not talking about teams, or a frontcourt, or even the shooting guard. We're talking point guard, in which quickness and speed are the attributes you want more than anything. Not size. If the guy has size, all the better, but a John Stockton did pretty well against Magic Johnson.

 

[Bricklayer]

Not sure what you mean by "fascinated" here. If you mean "fashioned", then when it comes to the pg position, power and size aren't the primary attributes you want. Quickness and speed are. Size is secondary.

I'm well aware of the deficiencies of categorization. But point guard does serve to cyrstallize what this team needs, and Tyreke doesn't have those attributes in sufficient quantity for this team's success.

yes, but Derek Fisher does?

PGs have been fairly irrelevant at the championship level. Half the time they are barely competent guys who just dribble well enoguh to get it over the stripe and dump it off. When they are better ones who actually have importance, almost every single one of them is a guy who attacks the paint (Parker) or has size/strength/defense (Billups/Kidd) or both. And again why? Because at the elite level nearly EVERY major/important player you are relying on to win needs to be able to do those things. To dominate play in the paint.

People are blind as a bat and amusingly (or soemteims not) fascianted with the pure PG boondoggle since back int he 80s a 6'9" power version won some titles and whatnot, but the skillsets and positions of our two best players are BEAUTIFULLY set up for eventual contention. Power and interior dominance from your PG and C? The fact that does not excite people only says not so nice things about their understanding of the NBA. Its like the sine qua non of being a PG is that a guy has to be cute and small and just huggable. Never mind that such twerps rarely win it all, and almsot never as a major piece.

Reke couldn't get us their just as a playgrounder with drives and kicks. But Smart has him running an actual offense now, and he, and we, are looking better at it all the time. Tony Parker has averaged 5.8 ast a game over his career, coming in as a driving PG who can't shoot BTW. And he's got 3 rings on his fingers. In the last month Reke's numbers are 17.3pts 5.6reb and 6.4ast. In Tony Parker's 3 title years his numbers were 15.5pts 2.6reb 5.3ast, 16.6pts 3.7reb 6.1ast, and 18.6pts 3.2reb 5.5ast. I know that of course won't mean anything to you as you are the same guy who with a straight face was arguing that Reke is not a good ballhandler, but it would make a reasonable person go hmm.

 

[Glenn]

No 6'9" PG could turn out to be a good PG. It's just a publicity stunt, you know like the cover of Sports Illustrated and the like. Next thing you will tell me he replaced the all time NBA scoring leader in a crucial game and played center. Oh, wait!

 

[Spike]

No 6'9" PG could turn out to be a good PG. It's just a publicity stunt, you know like the cover of Sports Illustrated and the like. Next thing you will tell me he replaced the all time NBA scoring leader in a crucial game and played center. Oh, wait!

C'mon Glenn...one sample citing arguably the greatest player to play the game doesn't count. Why don't you make a more rational comparison to someone who averaged a triple double for an entire season - but wait, he was 6'5", so definitely small...especially by yesterday's standards.

 

[Glenn]

C'mon Glenn...one sample citing arguably the greatest player to play the game doesn't count. Why don't you make a more rational comparison to someone who averaged a triple double for an entire season - but wait, he was 6'5", so definitely small...especially by yesterday's standards.

Actually he averaged a triple double over three seasons on average. Not bad. I'm talking about the guy from the franchise from which the Kings sprung. Now is THAT a real point guard? Depends on what you think a PG should be and we have mentioned two that don't fall into the normal PG role yet were two of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA and were labeled as PGs. Maybe there's more than one way of playing the position but that's a little radical, isn't it?

BTW, Oscar was a nasty bastid and if any coach tried to change his game, there would have been hell to pay.