Move JJ to SF

[DJlaysitup]

It won't happen but if this were the old days - before agents and multi-million dollar contracts were at stake it would be a no brainer. Start you best five players. JJ is a great player still and he could do much of what he does offensively from the 3 spot just as easy as he does it from the 2. The starting lineupp should be Horford-C, Smoove-PF, JJ-SF, Crawford-SG/PG, Bibby-PG/SG. Would that hurt our defense? I dunno - I would say not much...our defense is pretty lackluster anyways...may as well put the best five guys you got on the court and challenge the other team to stop them.

Come out firing on all cylinders and make the other team adjust. We would still have a solid (and more traditional) second team with Zaza-C, Joe Smith-PF, Marvin-SF, Mo Evans (although somewhat out of place)-SG, Teague-PG. We could get away with Mo at SG with Teague as a very quick backup PG....realistically we should substitute situationally anyways...so you seldom have the whole second team in at one time.

Face it. We are never going to be a "lock down" defensive team like the old Pistons....we just don't have the bigs to do it. JJ would be a major upgrade at the 3 from Marvin and JJ actually knows how to block out for rebounds. Heck, Larry Bird used to be an excellent rebounder as a SF and he couldn't jump. He understood that you just get position, stick yer butt in his crotch while the balls up in the air to negate his jumping ability, then just grab it. JJ does the same thing.

We could play just as good defense (maybe better) with a three guard lineup....and if we play relatively unselfishly we would scare the heck out of teams trying to defend against us...make them adjust to us. But alas, that would have worked in the good old days - when a coach could just tell a guy what to do and contracts weren't on the line. Besides, our current coach probably couldn't manage it.

But it's a nice thought...and would be effective and fun to watch.

Edited November 7, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[TheNorthCydeRises]

In the "old days", a team might have done the opposite of what you suggest. Because if that were the case . . .

- Kurt Rambis never starts with the 80s Lakers

- Vinnie Johnson would've started in a 3-guard likeup with the 80s Pistons

- Stacey Augmon wouldn've started with the 90s Hawks

- The 90s Bulls wouldn't have wasted time starting Bill Cartwright

- Greg Oestertag sure in the hell wouldn't have started in Utah in the 90s

Teams win in the NBA by playing defense. Offense will only take you so far. But if you don't stop anybody, you're still going to be at risk for losing games. There are plenty of teams in this league that can score the basketball. But they won't win jack, because they can't stop their opponent.

While the defense of the starters have sucked, the 2nd team is even worse. The Bibby - Crawford backcourt is only viable if they're scoring the basketball. And even then, the defense will suffer. No matter how many people hate Marvin starting, his presence in the starting lineup is a defensive necessity . . unless you start Evans.

It may take a few weeks for Woody to get the right mix in the lineup, as far as the rotation. And I agree that the entire 2nd unit shouldn't all be in the game at the same time. They've been overhyped here since Day 1. In reality, this rotation should only go 9-deep, with Crawford and Zaza the only guys being assured of getting decent PT off the bench. Everybody else should get spot minutes at best.

If we hold serve at home, Woody will still willingly play 10 guys. But if we"re playing .500 ball, he's going to shorten the lineup. Everybody, including me, wants Teague to get decent minutes to get his feet wet in the league. Bu he and Crawford have to start playing better together, especially defensively. Right now, both of them are matadors on defense, with Teague maybe getting the occasional steal off a loose ball.

If people want to start Crawford so bad, Bibby is the guy you bench, not Marvin. Or you can bench both Bibby and Marvin, start Crawford at point, Mo at the 2, and JJ at the 3.

Starting Bibby and Crawford together though, should not be an option.

[DJlaysitup]

Teams win in the NBA by playing defense. Offense will only take you so far. But if you don't stop anybody, you're still going to be at risk for losing games. There are plenty of teams in this league that can score the basketball. But they won't win jack, because they can't stop their opponent.

While the defense of the starters have sucked, the 2nd team is even worse. The Bibby - Crawford backcourt is only viable if they're scoring the basketball. And even then, the defense will suffer. No matter how many people hate Marvin starting, his presence in the starting lineup is a defensive necessity . .

I agree with some of what you said (and deleted some of the more mundane stuff). "Marvin's presence in the starting lineup is a defensive necessity" is a bunch of hooey IMHO. He's a goober. When was the last time you saw Marvin coming off his man to make a block against a driver....pretty much never. Marvin is a "lock down" defender like I'm a phookin astronaut. Settle down and be realistic. Marvin is a tall human being taking up some space on the floor. Sure, he tries, but he has NO BB-instincts. Why bother.

The Marvin defenders have gone from - he will develop, he's so young - to he can drive to the hoop - to he can now shoot the three (I was one of those) - to now: he is a great defender....but he's not...WFT? Our defense stinks and the only guys doing spit inside are Horford and Smoove. Marvin isn't scaring anybody. I watched Nocioni go around him in the low post like he was a statue...c'mon

If the powers that be can't shuffle JJ to Sf - then put Crawford there...he's 6'5".

Edited November 7, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[MaceCase]

Let's just give up on winning all together and become the Warriors east. We should run a lineup of Teague Bibby Jamal JJ and Smoove out there and dare teams to keep up with us. Won't win jack but at least it's exciting ball.

[Diesel]

In the "old days", a team might have done the opposite of what you suggest. Because if that were the case . . .

- Kurt Rambis never starts with the 80s Lakers

- Vinnie Johnson would've started in a 3-guard likeup with the 80s Pistons

- Stacey Augmon wouldn've started with the 90s Hawks

- The 90s Bulls wouldn't have wasted time starting Bill Cartwright

- Greg Oestertag sure in the hell wouldn't have started in Utah in the 90s

- The first question is who starts ahead of Rambis. Worthy spend one year on the bench behind Magic... But damn, that's Magic. Magic could have played PF but Rambis complimented Magic's rebounds.

- So you believe that Vinny Johnson was better than Adreian Dantley or Mark Aguire??

- Who would have started in Platic Man's place? Duane Ferrell? Just because Augmon was a slasher doesn't mean that he wasn't better than Duane Ferrell, Morlon Wiley, or Paul "snoop" Graham.

- Medical Bill Cartwright was the best of the 3 headed Centers that Chicago used. Even after Longley got there.

-Ostertag in Utah... He wasn't always the starter. He started out of neccessity most of the time. Utah's Starting Centers have been Eden, Spencer, Polynice, Collins, and Okur... From time to time when Injury or trade permitted Ostertag would start, but that's because he was the best of the rest.

[Diesel]

It won't happen but if this were the old days - before agents and multi-million dollar contracts were at stake it would be a no brainer. Start you best five players. JJ is a great player still and he could do much of what he does offensively from the 3 spot just as easy as he does it from the 2. The starting lineupp should be Horford-C, Smoove-PF, JJ-SF, Crawford-SG/PG, Bibby-PG/SG. Would that hurt our defense? I dunno - I would say not much...our defense is pretty lackluster anyways...may as well put the best five guys you got on the court and challenge the other team to stop them.

Come out firing on all cylinders and make the other team adjust. We would still have a solid (and more traditional) second team with Zaza-C, Joe Smith-PF, Marvin-SF, Mo Evans (although somewhat out of place)-SG, Teague-PG. We could get away with Mo at SG with Teague as a very quick backup PG....realistically we should substitute situationally anyways...so you seldom have the whole second team in at one time.

Face it. We are never going to be a "lock down" defensive team like the old Pistons....we just don't have the bigs to do it. JJ would be a major upgrade at the 3 from Marvin and JJ actually knows how to block out for rebounds. Heck, Larry Bird used to be an excellent rebounder as a SF and he couldn't jump. He understood that you just get position, stick yer butt in his crotch while the balls up in the air to negate his jumping ability, then just grab it. JJ does the same thing.

We could play just as good defense (maybe better) with a three guard lineup....and if we play relatively unselfishly we would scare the heck out of teams trying to defend against us...make them adjust to us. But alas, that would have worked in the good old days - when a coach could just tell a guy what to do and contracts weren't on the line. Besides, our current coach probably couldn't manage it.

But it's a nice thought...and would be effective and fun to watch.

The truth is that we didn't look bad last year with JJ at the three. People overrate the ability of Marvin. You play 30 minutes and go 3-8. That's horrible.

I don't know if Moving Mo or Craw into the starting lineup is the longterm answer, but I believe that we have to address our problems:

1. Offensive cohesiveness.

2. Aggressiveness.

We have coaching problems.

[DJlaysitup]

People overrate the ability of Marvin.

Well it's come down to this IMHO...now we are wanting to "keep him in there" because of his defensive skills. What? I don't see anything fancy about Marvin Williams' defensive skills. He's not blocking shots...he's not changing the game...he's no Dennis Rodman out there. Heck oftentimes when there is a guy wide open for the three - it's his man

.

Edited November 7, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[Diesel]

Well it's come down to this IMHO...now we are wanting to "keep him in there" because of his defensive skills. What? I don't see anything fancy about Marvin Williams' defensive skills. He's not blocking shots...he's not changing the game...he's no Dennis Rodman out there. Heck oftentimes when there is a guy wide open for the three - it's his man

.

You're preaching at the choir.

There are two stupid statements that Marvin loyalist make:

1. He's the best defender.... Joe is a hellavu lot better than Marvin. In fact, Marvin's defense doesn't really make that much difference.

2. ________________ (the guy who's better than Marvin but is on the bench) is a great spark off the bench... we don't want to take that away? Tha'ts BS too. Let's just start Evans in place of Joe if that's the case. Then we can start with Evans and Marvin in the lineup and then bring Joe and Craw off the bench. You know why we won't do that... Because it's stupid to play better players off the bench. However, that's what the Marvin loyalist prescribe every time it becomes evident that there's a better player than Marvin playing behind him. IN Crawford's case, it's overwhelmingly evident that he's better than Marvin. No doubt. However, there's somebody who will argue that Crawford plays better off the bench or Crawford is the spark that our second team needs. BS. We don't have a second team. We have reserves.

[niremetal]

You're preaching at the choir.

There are two stupid statements that Marvin loyalist make:

1. He's the best defender.... Joe is a hellavu lot better than Marvin. In fact, Marvin's defense doesn't really make that much difference.

2. ________________ (the guy who's better than Marvin but is on the bench) is a great spark off the bench... we don't want to take that away? Tha'ts BS too. Let's just start Evans in place of Joe if that's the case. Then we can start with Evans and Marvin in the lineup and then bring Joe and Craw off the bench. You know why we won't do that... Because it's stupid to play better players off the bench. However, that's what the Marvin loyalist prescribe every time it becomes evident that there's a better player than Marvin playing behind him. IN Crawford's case, it's overwhelmingly evident that he's better than Marvin. No doubt. However, there's somebody who will argue that Crawford plays better off the bench or Crawford is the spark that our second team needs. BS. We don't have a second team. We have reserves.

Raise your hand if you don't even read Diesel's posts anymore if you see the word "Marvin" in it. :bye1:

[DJlaysitup]

Then we can start with Evans and Marvin in the lineup and then bring Joe and Craw off the bench. You know why we won't do that... Because it's stupid to play better players off the bench.

LOL - and it deserves a LOL...anybody who doesn't understand that you start the game with your five best players are totally ignorant. Now I would understand if Craw was 5'9"....but he's 6'5" and he is twice (if not three times) the player that Marvin is. Phuck this "spark off the bench" BS. Larry Bird came into the league as a relative unknown from a mid-major college...Red sure as hell didn't use him as a "spark off the bench". Nope.

[niremetal]

LOL - and it deserves a LOL...anybody who doesn't understand that you start the game with your five best players are totally ignorant. Now I would understand if Craw was 5'9"....but he's 6'5" and he is twice (if not three times) the player that Marvin is. Phuck this "spark off the bench" BS. Larry Bird came into the league as a relative unknown from a mid-major college...Red sure as hell didn't use him as a "spark off the bench". Nope.

Ok, a few things:

1) Auerbach never coached Bird

2) Auerbach did coach Havlicek. He brought him off the bench.

3) Kevin McHale was a Sixth Man for much of his career

4) So is Manu

I guess Red Auerbach just didn't know what the hell he was doing. Same with Popovich today.

Edited November 8, 2009 by niremetal

[capstone21]

There is a reason why JT and Manu come off the bench. They are starters but they bring fire power to the second unit. Those teams have Dirk/Marion and Duncan/Parker to get it started and then you bring in your sparg plugs to keep it going.

Crawford's role is perfect. He comes in and continues our scoring. He does not need to start to have an impact for us. Basketball is more then just 5 players. I am not a fan of the Crawford / Bibby backcourt anyway since both are bad defenders so I like it when they do not have extended minutes together.

[Diesel]

There is a reason why JT and Manu come off the bench. They are starters but they bring fire power to the second unit. Those teams have Dirk/Marion and Duncan/Parker to get it started and then you bring in your sparg plugs to keep it going.

Crawford's role is perfect. He comes in and continues our scoring. He does not need to start to have an impact for us. Basketball is more then just 5 players. I am not a fan of the Crawford / Bibby backcourt anyway since both are bad defenders so I like it when they do not have extended minutes together.

TOLD YA SO...

In my best Eddie Murphy voice.... Everytime I talk about starting your best five players, somebody has to go and pull Ginobili out of their arse.

Here's the deal. San Antonio is an old slow team. Playing Ginobili off the bench may give them a chance to establish Duncan. Duncan is not an uptempo player. With Tony Parker and Ginobili running from the outset, Duncan would never get his game established. That's what they do to keep chemistry good. However, we are not built like San Antonio. We are young and we like to run. There is no benefit in sitting Crawford and playing a less capable scorer (Marvin). Moreover, JJ would do much better against 3s than 2s and 1s.

[pound4pound]

If we are honest - the question isn't should Crawford start over Marvin - it is should he start over Bibby. If we are having the best five argument - it begins with who brings more to the table as the last piece - Marvin or Bibby. Marvin clearly has more to bring to the table on defense, rebounding, and another option on the break.

[DjGrizz]

Maybe this is an overused cliche, but 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'

[Crank]

Im torn about this issue now .I was fully behind Diesel in the summer as I knew from watching some film that Crawford would be this good in hawks uniform.However Crawford is a very confident player who will do well no matter where we put him .He is in his prime and is a top 15 SG in this league right now .Marvin doesnt seem to have much confidence right now and I would rather use the next few weeks trying to help him find it . I was hoping Woody wouldve left Marvin in with the second unit in the second half as I think Crawford may be more help to his game at this point then JJ .

The other reason I think its best to have Crawford off the bench is I dont know how JJ will handle it . He seems pretty fragile right now and he seems to know with every good game by Crawford and Smoove the chance to prove he is worth the full max will come down to how well he does in the playoffs .

Im for status quo right now with a revisiting of this topic after 25 games .

[MaceCase]

Raise your hand if you don't even read Diesel's posts anymore if you see the word "Marvin" in it. :bye1:

:bye1:

[Buzzard]

If we are honest - the question isn't should Crawford start over Marvin - it is should he start over Bibby. If we are having the best five argument - it begins with who brings more to the table as the last piece - Marvin or Bibby. Marvin clearly has more to bring to the table on defense, rebounding, and another option on the break.

True and anyone that did not notice Denvers offensive game improve after Marvin picked up his 4th and 5th foul is blind as a bat. Smoove was spectacular last night and Marvin was rock solid. Our whole team played well, even Bibby.

We looked like a cohesive unit for the 1st time this season and I do think Woody is looking at the possibility of starting Crawford over Bibby. Bibby has only played 40 total minutes the last two games vs Crawfords 72.

Given how well we played with Crawford, JJ, Marvin, Smoove, and Horford on the floor together last night; would not suprise me any if that is the starting lineup real soon. Did not look like we lost anything defensively and we were a lot more versatile with all those options on the floor.

And even if Bibby continues to start, I still look for Crawford to get more minutes at the point now. Denver was missing Kenyon; but they still played two all stars last night and damn we looked good!

[dlpin]

The whole discussion over who starts and who comes off the bench is overrated.

What does it matter if Marvin is the started if in the end the minutes are the same? Crawford is already fourth in minutes and get 30 minutes a game, so he already plays much of the game against the first unit.

[Buzzard]

The whole discussion over who starts and who comes off the bench is overrated.

What does it matter if Marvin is the started if in the end the minutes are the same? Crawford is already fourth in minutes and get 30 minutes a game, so he already plays much of the game against the first unit.

I agree it does not matter much whether Bibby or Craw starts; especially when you are talking about two PGs who are both defensive liabilities. Woodson can easily keep Bibby as the starter and insert Craw after the 1st five minutes or so depending on how the game is going. Marvin not starting has a more detrimental effect defensively; but hell if Woody does bench Marvin and we improve; I dont mind.

IMO I think the better defensive unit should be in the game at the start. Crawford for Bibby no defensive loss....Crawford for Marvin big defensive loss.

I know others think this is wrong; but two or three of them have the following agenda: to see Marvin benched and/or traded. I ignore those posters quite a bit but you seem like a fan whose only agenda is for us to be better. And yes I know, their opinion will never get Marvin traded or benched; but the redundant bench/trade Marvin babble can be irritating if you don't ignore it at times.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Buzzard