How would Griffin fit in?

[miltonap]

Let's say we get the #1 overall pick and we pick Blake, although I would rather have us pick Rubio. How does that affect us? I mean we already have Jason Thompson as our power forward. He is very young and has a bright future ahead of him. Same can be said for Spencer Hawes. Would it be realistic to sit one of them on the bench to put Griffin in the lineup? To me it doesnt. And I don't see Griffin coming off the bench as a #1 pick or maybe it could happen? He would not fit in at small forward. That's just not his postion. So would you trade JT for another piece (not a pf) to fit Griffin comfortably in the rotation? Im just wondering what you guys think about the situation.

 

[PurpleHaze]

We've talked about this so-called glut of big men a lot here. The consensus is we don't have that deep a front court now but with Griffin would. Therefore, if "it" comes to pass most seemed to think Hawes is at 5 and JT starts at 4 until Griffin beats him out maybe around mid-season or the next year. Then JT goes into the bench role of a back-up for both - what's wrong with that

 

[BLNINJA #81]

We've talked about this so-called glut of big men a lot here. The consensus is we don't have that deep a front court now but with Griffin would. Therefore, if "it" comes to pass most seemed to think Hawes is at 5 and JT starts at 4 until Griffin beats him out maybe around mid-season or the next year. Then JT goes into the bench role of a back-up for both - what's wrong with that

Who's going to pass the ball to those 3... who's going to set them up like a real point guard can???


RUBIO

 

[PurpleHaze]

Who's going to pass the ball to those 3... who's going to set them up like a real point guard can???


RUBIO

But you can only have one presumably if you land #1 pick. Maybe with #2 pick you get Rubio, but then you have no Griffin. Oh, that's right we then re-sign Ike

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't think Jason and Griffin are compatible -- they are both hustle boarders, mostly inside players, and neither could stop me from scoring 20 in an NBA game. You don't need 2 guys playing the same role so if you draft Griffin its going to be one or the other, not both. Even if you want to close your eyes and click your ruby slippers and cross your fingers and throw salt over your shoulder and anything else you might think up that will let you believe having 3 offensive minded non-defending big men will result in a good defensive frontcourt, you still wouldn't have them for more than 2 years, as whoever was losing the minutes matchup would be off to greener pastures where he could start.

It would double the chances one of them could be a star, but whoever lost that battle would also erode in value as an asset as he lost minutes and got sent ot the bench. If Griffin is not good enough to unseat Jason, he will never have as much value as an asset as he did when he was stil just the #1 overall pick. If Jason is unseated and sent to the bench, he will never have as much value as he does right now as an apparent future starter.

 

[tradepeja]

I don't think I am alone in this, but if Griffin is putting on a Kings jersey in a couple months, Petrie needs to be jettisoned to the Moon.

Either we'll not get the #1 pick (extremely likely) and therefore no Griffin, or we'll get it and, God-willing, trade down. Griffin is going to be a poor-man's Amare with, somehow, even less defense. Any of the other top 4 would suit us far better.

 

[KF8]

The potential problem I could see with this is that it could hinder the developement of either Jason Thompson or Blake Griffin because only one of them could start. Some guys play better when they start. I'm pretty confident Thompson would be ok and still produce off the bench though. There should be enough minutes to go around. We can follow the Lakers as an example. They have Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum as starters and Lamar Odom off the bench and that worked out fine. Like Lamar Odom, Jason Thompson could play multiple positions. He could back up Hawes at center and Griffin at power forward and that would give him about 30 minutes a night. Honestly, I think it's a nice problem to have . A glut of talented big men

 

[Jechtsphere]

And if Griffin can't beat JT for the starting position then the worst team in the NBA drafted a back up number 1 overall.

I don't think it would fit very well.

 

[Lafayette]

I'll go with Rubio at this point just because PG's always make bigger impacts on teams. Rose, Kidd, Parker, Marbury... those are gaurds that made sudden impacts compared to Forwards. If we do draft Griffin I just say that he plays the 3. Have a strong front court.

 

[thelonegunman]

I don't think Jason and Griffin are compatible -- they are both hustle boarders, mostly inside players, and neither could stop me from scoring 20 in an NBA game. You don't need 2 guys playing the same role so if you draft Griffin its going to be one or the other, not both. Even if you want to close your eyes and click your ruby slippers and cross your fingers and throw salt over your shoulder and anything else you might think up that will let you believe having 3 offensive minded non-defending big men will result in a good defensive frontcourt, you still wouldn't have them for more than 2 years, as whoever was losing the minutes matchup would be off to greener pastures where he could start.

You're kidding, right? Have you actually watched Blake Griffin play? I mean, seriously? I guarantee you that most insiders do not share your opinion that Thompson and Griffin are similar or would play a similar role. And neither player is as bad defensively as you are painting them.

Furthermore, you don't draft for need. You draft the best player available regardless of position. While nothing is ever absolute when it comes to the draft or the opinions of draft gurus, most insiders will tell you that Blake Griffin is the best player available.

Drafting for need is exactly why Portland passed on Michael Jordan when they already had Clyde Drexler. You just shouldn't do it. You take the BPA and, if you end up with a logjam at that position, you find a way to deal with it.

 

[Kingsroots]

You're kidding, right? Have you actually watched Blake Griffin play? I mean, seriously? I guarantee you that most insiders do not share your opinion that Thompson and Griffin are similar or would play a similar role. And neither player is as bad defensively as you are painting them.

Furthermore, you don't draft for need. You draft the best player available regardless of position. While nothing is ever absolute when it comes to the draft or the opinions of draft gurus, most insiders will tell you that Blake Griffin is the best player available.

Drafting for need is exactly why Portland passed on Michael Jordan when they already had Clyde Drexler. You just shouldn't do it. You take the BPA and, if you end up with a logjam at that position, you find a way to deal with it.

Agreed. If Thompson and Griffin become our two best players, you start both of them at the 3,4 or the 4,3...

 

[KF8]

Agreed. If Thompson and Griffin become our two best players, you start both of them at the 3,4 or the 4,3...

I don't think Thompson or Griffin could play small forward. We should play guys at positions where they could maximize their talent. Thompson and Griffin at the small forward spot would be considered out of position and make them less effective. However, I could see Thompson or Griffin take some minutes at Center depending on how they match up with other teams.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

If ( and hopefully when ) we draft Griffin I really dont see a problem with how it will all shake out.

Griffin is the rookie. You start Thompson and Hawes and rotate Griffin in for at least 30mpg... JT can play some 5 and Griffin or JT can play some 3 when your going against big lineups.

As long as they all get 30 minutes a game I dont see what the problem is. After the season you evaluate which one you like best and trade the other, or if Griffin is playing to the point were he absolutely surpasses JT this season you go out and trade JT and Kenny Thomas expiring contract for one of those vets on teams that will be sellers at the trade deadline trying to cut salary.

I think we will be better next season by about 10 games. ( as I said in another thread ) So while improving will be important, winning isnt essential. If we can produce at least 2 stars out of the three potential young bigs then were well on our way.

 

[Kings Faithful]

You're kidding, right? Have you actually watched Blake Griffin play? I mean, seriously? I guarantee you that most insiders do not share your opinion that Thompson and Griffin are similar or would play a similar role. And neither player is as bad defensively as you are painting them.

Furthermore, you don't draft for need. You draft the best player available regardless of position. While nothing is ever absolute when it comes to the draft or the opinions of draft gurus, most insiders will tell you that Blake Griffin is the best player available.

Drafting for need is exactly why Portland passed on Michael Jordan when they already had Clyde Drexler. You just shouldn't do it. You take the BPA and, if you end up with a logjam at that position, you find a way to deal with it.

Some of us would argue that Rubio is the better player right now... I actually think its hard to gauge who is the better player for several reasons... 1.they play completely different positions and do completely different things and 2. they are in different leagues. In that case I would say it might be a good idea to go with our needs right now because lets be honest, we aren't talking about Michael Jordan here...

 

[Kings Faithful]

If ( and hopefully when ) we draft Griffin I really dont see a problem with how it will all shake out.

Griffin is the rookie. You start Thompson and Hawes and rotate Griffin in for at least 30mpg... JT can play some 5 and Griffin or JT can play some 3 when your going against big lineups.

As long as they all get 30 minutes a game I dont see what the problem is. After the season you evaluate which one you like best and trade the other, or if Griffin is playing to the point were he absolutely surpasses JT this season you go out and trade JT and Kenny Thomas expiring contract for one of those vets on teams that will be sellers at the trade deadline trying to cut salary.

I think we will be better next season by about 10 games. ( as I said in another thread ) So while improving will be important, winning isnt essential. If we can produce at least 2 stars out of the three potential young bigs then were well on our way.

What happens if Griffin and Thompson under perform and their values are diminished? Other than that I really don't have a problem with your idea, but if waiting a year can possibly hurt our chances at trading for a proven player who fills a need then I am hesitant.

 

[beb0p]

When Portland last made the WCF, they had a frontline of Rasheed, Sabonis, Brain Grant, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O'Neal. That's a front court that could counter any system. And when they can't overpower you, they can still wear you down.

My point is a deep frontline is a very good thing and there's no shame in having a very, very good PF comes off the bench. If JT ends up being a backup and it helps the team win then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm only concerned with winning, I'll let JT's agent worry about the minutes.

As a side note, recall the 00-01 playoff against the Suns. Jason Kidd commented afterwards that it was not Webber, Peja, Divac, or any of the starter who won it for the Kings; Kidd pointed to a 6'-11 backup with a funny hairdo and said that guy was the only reason the Suns lost. The backup big man, when the right person is put in that role, can do wonders for a team.

 

[Prince_XY]

It is not as if we have solid starters in all position like the Lakers, Cavaliers, or the Celtics that a player like Griffin wouldn't be able to fit. We are far from having solid starters at all position ( except probably at #2 with Martin ) and it would always be wise to welcome the BPA in this draft irregardless of need. May it be Griffin, Rubio, Thabeet, or Jennings - anyone of the four should be a welcome addition to this young team and they should be given enough playing time ( say at least 24 minutes per game ) at the very start.

I agree with MassachusettesKingsFan on how to use Griffin.

#5 - Hawes ( 7' 0" ) 36 min, Thompson ( 6' 11" ) 12 min
#4 - Thompson ( 6' 11" ) 24 min, Griffin ( 6' 10" ) 24 min
#3 - Nocioni ( 6' 7" ) 24 min, Greene ( 6' 10" ) 24 min

 

[Bricklayer]

When Portland last made the WCF, they had a frontline of Rasheed, Sabonis, Brain Grant, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O'Neal. That's a front court that could counter any system. And when they can't overpower you, they can still wear you down.

You just made the argument AGAINST a Griffon/Thimpson pairing. You are right that that Portland frontline had answers against almost everybody because it had 5 UNIQUE skillsets. Everybody had their own role and could do different things and exploit different matchups (some of those thigns they could do included defense BTW). You tell what is different about the roles that Jason and Griffin (potentially) would play. What is different about their skiillsets, where they like to work, how they like to work, their best position, their strengths or their weaknesses.

When you put together a frontline crew, everybody needs to have their own portfolio so that they don't end up stepping on each other's toes. And at least one of them needs ot be able to play defense. Its not necessarily a 100% argument against taking Griffin depending on what your read is on him -- if he's special you take him and its Jason's status you have to wonder about. But it IS an argument against pairing two very similar players skillsetwise, and then throwing Spencer into the mix as well, and thinking that you have created any sort of long term workable frontcourt. And again, Jason now knows/expects to be a starter in this league. Griffin will absolutely expect to be a starter. Both will expect to get their touches. Unless Griffin politely flops, which would not be a good thing, there is no long term platoon there. One, the other, or both, will leave for a team willing to give them the starting job and starting money.

P.S. You raised Pollard -- THAT is the appropriate third guy when you have a Vlade/Webber or Spencer/Jason frontline. The 4/5 banger, defender, scrapper who plays a different game and fills a different role and covers for the things the first two do not do. And the fourth guy is probably a 4/3 ala Hedo.

 

[beb0p]

You just made the argument AGAINST a Griffon/Thimpson pairing.

Eh? I never made an argument for a Griffin/Thompson pairing. I made a Griffin/Hawes pairing with JT off the bench. I'm sure there will be moment when JT is subbed in for Hawes and played alongside Griffin. But we're talking about a 5-12 mins stint against the second units. JT's best position is PF and passable as a C, so a Griffin/JT pairing contains all the problems of playing two PFs together.

With that said, JT is the scrappy defender who is perfect for the Pollard role; or I should say he has the potential to be that guy. There's a lot of hustle and scrappiness in his game but he needs to get stronger and be a better man defender. Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but if the point is that JT is not scrappy then that's simply not correct. Maybe your point is that JT is scrappy but not yet a good defender. Then I guess the idea is to wait for JT to develop that part of the game. As for him taking on reduced mins, sure that's a challenge. We'd need a coach who can sell that idea. The thing is, I actually think JT will accept a backup role if he's still getting 25-30 mins a game.

So I see three different types of player in them: Hawes as a Vlade type, Griffin the good offensive player with brawn, and JT the hustle/scrapper with enough offense to keep the defense honest. None of them are good defender... yet. But I think JT can be that scrappy Junk Yard Dog type.

 

[Oprostaj]

Eh? I never made an argument for a Griffin/Thompson pairing. I made a Griffin/Hawes pairing with JT off the bench. I'm sure there will be moment when JT is subbed in for Hawes and played alongside Griffin. But we're talking about a 5-12 mins stint against the second units. JT's best position is PF and passable as a C, so a Griffin/JT pairing contains all the problems of playing two PFs together.

With that said, JT is the scrappy defender who is perfect for the Pollard role; or I should say he has the potential to be that guy. There's a lot of hustle and scrappiness in his game but he needs to get stronger and be a better man defender. Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but if the point is that JT is not scrappy then that's simply not correct. Maybe your point is that JT is scrappy but not yet a good defender. Then I guess the idea is to wait for JT to develop that part of the game. As for him taking on reduced mins, sure that's a challenge. We'd need a coach who can sell that idea. The thing is, I actually think JT will accept a backup role if he's still getting 25-30 mins a game.

So I see three different types of player in them: Hawes as a Vlade type, Griffin the good offensive player with brawn, and JT the hustle/scrapper with enough offense to keep the defense honest. None of them are good defender... yet. But I think JT can be that scrappy Junk Yard Dog type.

You CANNOT get all 3 the amount of playing time to keep them happy. The whole point of a scrappy junkdog defender is that he knows his role. If Hawes/Griffin are the supremely talented offensive powerhouses, what is the point in playing them 25 mins a game???? You absolutely cannot play these three together and expect everybody to be happy. If everything falls into place like YOU mention it, JT should not be seeing more than 15 mins a game, otherwise you are destroying the offensive flow of your team.

The problem = JT is not the junkyard scrappy defender that Pollard is... JT actually has an offensive game and is far more athletic. You'd never be able to sell him as that defender off the bench role.

 

[beb0p]

The problem = JT is not the junkyard scrappy defender that Pollard is... JT actually has an offensive game and is far more athletic. You'd never be able to sell him as that defender off the bench role.

I think you're making an assumption that has no basis in fact. There are many backup PF who have offensive game. I think you and Brick have this idea that only a Mark Madsen type will accept a backup role and that's simply not true.

 

[sidney]

I think you're making an assumption that has no basis in fact. There are many backup PF who have offensive game. I think you and Brick have this idea that only a Mark Madsen type will accept a backup role and that's simply not true.

A Griffin/Hawes/JT front line?

Which one can defensively challenge big men like Gasol, Howard, Yao, Oden etc?
None

Which one can intimidate opposing guards who drive into the paint?
None

Which one is a talented scorer that wants the ball in their hands on offense?
All 3

It's not that we can't do it, it's just not a well balanced approach IMO

 

[Bricklayer]

I think you're making an assumption that has no basis in fact. There are many backup PF who have offensive game. I think you and Brick have this idea that only a Mark Madsen type will accept a backup role and that's simply not true.

Uh yeah, actually it largely is. Not sure what league you have been watching, but coming off the bench is a major chafepoint. Coming off the bench being asked to play a role for which you are not ideally suited is even worse (and this Jason as Pollard thing is laughable -- its no better than the Griffin as a SF thing -- wishful thinking). If it was a platoon situation, and the bench guy ate a lot of minutes because the starter was weak, you can possibly sustain that for a year or two until free agency comes up and somebody offers them big money to be a full time starter, but no young, healthy, legitimate NBA starter is going to be happy coming off the bench for long, nor should they really (nor will their agents let them be). For a guy like Jason or Griffin you are talking about costing him tens of millions of dollars. You cost me tens of millions of dollars I would be pretty grumpy too. In fact they'd probably have to break out the searchdogs looking for body parts.

You need a roleplayer, go out and get a roleplayer. Not only are they going to be better at it than a converted glamour boy, but they will also accept the role and their minutes with much less fuss.

 

[Bricklayer]

A Griffin/Thabeet/JT front line?

Which one can defensively challenge big men like Gasol, Howard, Yao, Oden etc?
None

Which one can intimidate opposing guards who drive into the paint?
None

Which one is a talented scorer that wants the ball in their hands on offense?
All 3

It's not that we can't do it, it's just not a well balanced approach IMO

think you meant Hawes.

 

[sidney]

think you meant Hawes.

oops, edited

 

[beb0p]

Uh yeah, actually it largely is. Not sure what league you have been watching, but coming off the bench is a major chafepoint. Coming off the bench being asked to play a role for which you are not ideally suited is even worse (and this Jason as Pollard thing is laughable -- its no better than the Griffin as a SF thing -- wishful thinking). If it was a platoon situation, and the bench guy ate a lot of minutes because the starter was weak, you can possibly sustain that for a year or two until free agency comes up and somebody offers them big money to be a full time starter, but no young, healthy, legitimate NBA starter is going to be happy coming off the bench for long, nor should they really (nor will their agents let them be). For a guy like Jason or Griffin you are talking about costing him tens of millions of dollars. You cost me tens of millions of dollars I would be pretty grumpy too. In fact they'd probably have to break out the searchdogs looking for body parts.

You need a roleplayer, go out and get a roleplayer. Not only are they going to be better at it than a converted glamour boy, but they will also accept the role and their minutes with much less fuss.

I've already said that I'll let JT's agent worry about his minutes. I'm sorry but I don't care if JT loses millions in potential earnings. I don't see why you should either. One of the best advice a hedge fund manager ever gave me is: Never fall in love with a commodity. People falls in love with a house, a stock, even a neighborhood and bad decisions are made because they do things in the best interest of the commodity instead of themselves.

And in this case, people falls in love with a player and hopes he does well, even if a potentially better player can be had. I like JT but I'm not going to treat him like he's Chris Webber, because he certainly is not. When you say things like "You need a roleplayer, go out and get a roleplaye", what do you think JT is? Not a role player? Look, JT is just a role player whether you admit to or not.

As for actual backups who has offensive game and are still relatively young: let me count them: Chris Wilcox, Nick Collison, Channing Frye, Kris Humprey, Ryan Gnomes, Glenn Davis, Leon Powe, Paul Millsap and many others. You tell me Brick, what league do they play in?

What I find unacceptable, is that those guys, including Lamar Odom in a contract year, have accepted bench roles but somehow "It's just so beneath JT to do the same!"

Nowhere did I ever said JT should be happy in a backup role. Again, I'm not his mother nor his agent, I don't care if he's happy. All I'm saying is, I think JT will accept a backup role, he will play hard, and he will help the team in such a role. And that's how you fit Griffin into the team, which is the subject of this thread. If this thread is about "How to Make JT Happy?" Then my answer would certainly be different.

.

 

[beb0p]

A Griffin/Hawes/JT front line?

Which one can defensively challenge big men like Gasol, Howard, Yao, Oden etc?
None

Which one can intimidate opposing guards who drive into the paint?
None

Which one is a talented scorer that wants the ball in their hands on offense?
All 3

It's not that we can't do it, it's just not a well balanced approach IMO

I said a Griffin/Hawes/JT frontline because a Dwight Howard/Duncan/young Dennis Rodman frontline is plain impossible.

Look, all of the problem you mentioned exists whether we draft Griffin or not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't draft Griffin or that we shouldn't try to make the best of the cards we have.

 

[sidney]

I said a Griffin/Hawes/JT frontline because a Dwight Howard/Duncan/young Dennis Rodman frontline is plain impossible.

Look, all of the problem you mentioned exists whether we draft Griffin or not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't draft Griffin or that we shouldn't try to make the best of the cards we have.

a JT / Hawes / Thabeet front line is balanced
a Griffin / Hawes / Thabeet front line is balanced

IMO, if we are going to take Griffin we should trade JT right away, probably on draft day in order to fill one of the two gaping holes we have - PG and a big that can defend / rebound / block shots.

Moving JT down to a role player status and minutes is a horrible move for the team because it lowers the value of one of our assets. You can't let a JT / Griffin / Hawes front line start the season.

 

[KF8]

At the moment most of us are assuming that the Hawes/JT/Griffin line up is pretty horrid on defense. Hawes and JT has the potential to become at least adequate defenders and the jury is still out on Griffin since we havn't even seen him play 1 NBA game yet. From what i've seen from Griffin though, I think he has the tool to become good defensively. The good thing is that all 3 seem to be hard workers/coachable and they will try to become good defensively under the right coach. We just need a good coach who can instill a defensive culture into these guys and get them to buy into playing defense. While I don't think we'll be able to become a defensive juggernaut, unless we get guys who are defensive specialists, we'll be able to at least be average to a little above average on defense. It would be nice to hold teams under 100 points on average for once.

 

[KF8]

a JT / Hawes / Thabeet front line is balanced
a Griffin / Hawes / Thabeet front line is balanced

IMO, if we are going to take Griffin we should trade JT right away, probably on draft day in order to fill one of the two gaping holes we have - PG and a big that can defend / rebound / block shots.

Moving JT down to a role player status and minutes is a horrible move for the team because it lowers the value of one of our assets. You can't let a JT / Griffin / Hawes front line start the season.

We can't worry about lowering the value of our assets. At the end of the day, if we are winning games our assets will automatically become better looking. We can't let players values dictate whether they start, sit, or even get traded. Good coaches will always put players in their roles. There is absolutely nothing wrong on being a deep team. If you look at the Lakers, Lamar Odom comes off the bench and we all know what he is capable of. Jason Thompson could very well be in a similar situation as Lamar Odom and i'm pretty confident he will play his role quite well.