"If a player only gets one minute, he better make it count"

[RedDawg#8]

Is it just me or does Woodson's theory sound like ish bull??? I read it again today in an ajc article about Morris and I just keep thinking, "why doesnt this apply to everybody?" then I answered my question with,"because it cant, sometimes players are off and you have to let them play throught it." prime example: JJ and Craw can do no wrong to Woody

What if rookie Lebron or more realistically Branden Jennings was on this team now coming off the bench behind somebody, and for every mistake he made he was pulled out the game??? the answer, you will never know what a player can do unless you let him play. Now, we have seen the bench a lot more as of late, and I think its great but I think its more to do with the score and quality of opponent than pure trust.

Its not easy to give every player minutes, but thats why you make all that money as an NBA coach, to manage minutes, DEVELOP TALENT, and ensure that every player is giving their all every minute they are playing and not just the younger ones on the bench. Boy, I really cant wait to see the day when Woody yell's at JJ for poor play, but it will probably never come.

Again, I do see that the bench has played more as of late, but can he keep it up for the rest of the year?

[AHF]

I am not a believer in Morris as an impact NBA player and have no problem with him getting extremely limited minutes. I'll be thrilled if he can step it up, but we have youth, depth, and talent in our frontcourt and Morris has not shown himself to be any kind of an impact player or prospect with significant upside.

Teague is in a different boat. We lack youth and depth at the PG position (unless people are good with Crawford running point) and Teague has shown signs of being an impact player with significant upside. He needs consistent minutes.

[justin31]

i think woodson has seen what happens when he gives young players minutes. he's probably trying to avoid the situation he's at now, where players like josh smith and al horford, who logged consistent minutes as rookies, become border-line All-Stars who don't contribute to the team's production. if we have another young player develop into another weapon, we're doomed as a team.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Is it just me or does Woodson's theory sound like ish bull??? I read it again today in an ajc article about Morris and I just keep thinking, "why doesnt this apply to everybody?" then I answered my question with,"because it cant, sometimes players are off and you have to let them play throught it." prime example: JJ and Craw can do no wrong to Woody

What if rookie Lebron or more realistically Branden Jennings was on this team now coming off the bench behind somebody, and for every mistake he made he was pulled out the game??? the answer, you will never know what a player can do unless you let him play. Now, we have seen the bench a lot more as of late, and I think its great but I think its more to do with the score and quality of opponent than pure trust.

Its not easy to give every player minutes, but thats why you make all that money as an NBA coach, to manage minutes, DEVELOP TALENT, and ensure that every player is giving their all every minute they are playing and not just the younger ones on the bench. Boy, I really cant wait to see the day when Woody yell's at JJ for poor play, but it will probably never come.

Again, I do see that the bench has played more as of late, but can he keep it up for the rest of the year?

What I don't get, is why people would think what Woody said is BS?

Anybody who has played organized sports before, will tell you that starters will get more leeway to mess up, more than a bench player. Why? Because the starter is more than likely able to make up for his mistakes, with great play. That's not a given for a bench player. That player is on the bench for a reason.

- Should Nate McMillian get blasted for not developing Jerryd Bayless, when he has Steve Blake and Andre Miller to go to at the 1?

- Should Phil Jackson take time to develop Adam Morrison, when he has Ron Artest and Lamar Odom that can play the 3?

- Should Stan Van Gundy make more time for Brandon Bass, when he has Rashard Lewis and Ryan Anderson who can play the 4?

- When Big Baby Davis comes back, should Doc Rivers continue to play Shelden Williams 13 minutes a game?

The fact is, when you have talented veteran players playing in front of a talented young player, the coach is going to opt to play the talented veterans . . until . . the talented young player proves that he can be an asset night in and night out ( and not just against horrible teams ).

In our case, we have Bibby and Crawford who can play the point. So there is no urgency ( key word: urgency ) to develop Teague right away. In his case, his playing time is going to be determined by how he plays in practice, and in the short stretches he plays in games. So when he comes into a game, he has to have the mindset that he's going to make something happen.

That's why when Woody says, "if he plays one minute, he better make it count", it's true. It simply means that when a bench player is called upon, they better be ready to produce in some sort of fashion, whether it be offensively and defensively. Because if they aren't, the coach can easily replace him with the starter, and play him extended minutes.

JJ Redick, for years, was NOT READY. He'd come into a game, even in garbage time, and play just like that . . straight garbage. But when he did get a chance to play decent minutes last year ( mainly because of injuries to other guys ), he made the most of it. Now, JJ is a nightly part of the Magic rotation, and producing in his role.

If a guy like Teague had Tyronn Lue and Anthony Johnson playing in front of him, then yeah, Woody should definitely play him at least 20 minutes a game ( if not name him the starter altogether ). But that's not the case. Unfortunately for him, he has two veteran guards who can play his start. So if he doesn't consistently play at a high level, even in limited minutes, the coach can easily opt to go with the vet players.

The bench earlier this year, was flat out losing leads, playing horrible defense, and was only as good as Crawford's scoring. Now, it seems as if they're more comfortable playing with each other, and are starting to compliment each other well on both ends of the floor. But on a team like ours, where we basically have 6 starters ( because Crawford plays starters minutes ), you don't sacrifice wins, to let everybody get a set amount of playing time.

I know it's hard for some people to do, but they just need to start trusting Woody about this.

Edited December 15, 2009 by northcyde

[RedDawg#8]

I have no problem with that if thats the case. What I take issue with is the way he states it, he suggests that EVERY player will be held to that standard when in fact they arent. Id prefer him to just come out and say "Joe, Bibby and Craw are vets and I will allow them more lee-way. Guys like Teague and Morris will have to prove themsleves to me each night".

I dont like when a coach says one thing and does another, id rather him be real and admit to what we already notice night in and night out.

[AHF]

Should the Lakers have developed Kobe Bryant (15.5 mpg rookie season) when they had a veteran SG averaging 17.2 ppg, 2.4 spg, 4.1 rpg and 3.1 apg ahead of him?

Yes.

Should they have sacrificed a few wins so that they developed their next starter even when their veteran starter was having an All-Star season?

Yes.

Why? Because the Lakers recognized that the team would be better in the long-run if they developed Kobe Bryant.

The situation isn't parallel here (LA had a younger, better player ahead of Kobe than Bibby or Crawford but Kobe also had more potential than Teague) but the idea of developing that young talent for the best interests of the team applies to both scenarios.

The fact is that our depth at PG is not much since Bibby is the only true PG on the roster other than Teague. Bibby's health is a known liability and his defense continues to get worse.

We will regret it later this year or, if we get lucky, next year if we don't develop Teague. The fact that Teague is playing very well this year and making very few mistakes (46 assists against 13 turnovers) should make it easier to give him a consistent role on the team. Bibby should remain the starter and carry the heavy load but Teague should absolutely be getting consistent minutes for his development.

Morris lacks the skill and upsdie and Josh/Horford are young enough that minutes for Randolph aren't warranted in the same way.

[jy23]

Should the Lakers have developed Kobe Bryant (15.5 mpg rookie season) when they had a veteran SG averaging 17.2 ppg, 2.4 spg, 4.1 rpg and 3.1 apg ahead of him?

Yes.

Should they have sacrificed a few wins so that they developed their next starter even when their veteran starter was having an All-Star season?

Yes.

Why? Because the Lakers recognized that the team would be better in the long-run if they developed Kobe Bryant.

The situation isn't parallel here (LA had a younger, better player ahead of Kobe than Bibby or Crawford but Kobe also had more potential than Teague) but the idea of developing that young talent for the best interests of the team applies to both scenarios.

The fact is that our depth at PG is not much since Bibby is the only true PG on the roster other than Teague. Bibby's health is a known liability and his defense continues to get worse.

We will regret it later this year or, if we get lucky, next year if we don't develop Teague. The fact that Teague is playing very well this year and making very few mistakes (46 assists against 13 turnovers) should make it easier to give him a consistent role on the team. Bibby should remain the starter and carry the heavy load but Teague should absolutely be getting consistent minutes for his development.

Morris lacks the skill and upsdie and Josh/Horford are young enough that minutes for Randolph aren't warranted in the same way.

CHECKMATE!!!!!

[Atlantaholic]

Should the Lakers have developed Kobe Bryant (15.5 mpg rookie season) when they had a veteran SG averaging 17.2 ppg, 2.4 spg, 4.1 rpg and 3.1 apg ahead of him?

Yes.

Should they have sacrificed a few wins so that they developed their next starter even when their veteran starter was having an All-Star season?

Yes.

Why? Because the Lakers recognized that the team would be better in the long-run if they developed Kobe Bryant.

The situation isn't parallel here (LA had a younger, better player ahead of Kobe than Bibby or Crawford but Kobe also had more potential than Teague) but the idea of developing that young talent for the best interests of the team applies to both scenarios.

The fact is that our depth at PG is not much since Bibby is the only true PG on the roster other than Teague. Bibby's health is a known liability and his defense continues to get worse.

We will regret it later this year or, if we get lucky, next year if we don't develop Teague. The fact that Teague is playing very well this year and making very few mistakes (46 assists against 13 turnovers) should make it easier to give him a consistent role on the team. Bibby should remain the starter and carry the heavy load but Teague should absolutely be getting consistent minutes for his development.

Morris lacks the skill and upsdie and Josh/Horford are young enough that minutes for Randolph aren't warranted in the same way.

What can I say, few posters consistently hit the nail on the head the way you do.

[Diesel]

Is it just me or does Woodson's theory sound like ish bull??? I read it again today in an ajc article about Morris and I just keep thinking, "why doesnt this apply to everybody?" then I answered my question with,"because it cant, sometimes players are off and you have to let them play throught it." prime example: JJ and Craw can do no wrong to Woody

What if rookie Lebron or more realistically Branden Jennings was on this team now coming off the bench behind somebody, and for every mistake he made he was pulled out the game??? the answer, you will never know what a player can do unless you let him play. Now, we have seen the bench a lot more as of late, and I think its great but I think its more to do with the score and quality of opponent than pure trust.

Its not easy to give every player minutes, but thats why you make all that money as an NBA coach, to manage minutes, DEVELOP TALENT, and ensure that every player is giving their all every minute they are playing and not just the younger ones on the bench. Boy, I really cant wait to see the day when Woody yell's at JJ for poor play, but it will probably never come.

Again, I do see that the bench has played more as of late, but can he keep it up for the rest of the year?

RD, I think you have hit on something that is a big problem for Woody. He has to find some way to justify benching players. However, like you said, it doesn't apply to everybody. JJ plays lots of minutes regardless of how he plays. For 3 years, Marvin played starters minutes and he wasn't the best player at his position. I doubt we would ever see a time when Josh screws up and is immediately sent to the bench. I think the thing is that Woody like most coaches believe that you have to let players play through bad moments. The problem is that this certainly doesn't apply for guys on Woody's bench. He has 2 sets of rules. One for starters and another for bench players. The bench player has to earn every millisecond of play. The starter is just put out there. We would love to see him be like other coaches who develop players... however, if he did that, it would cost us wins during the season. Still if he did that, when we needed these guys, we would be more confident that they could play for long stretches. Nothing was worst than watching Solo in the playoffs. The kid had a lot of potential but had barely played so he looked like crap playing in the playoffs. I hope Woody has learned from that.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Should the Lakers have developed Kobe Bryant (15.5 mpg rookie season) when they had a veteran SG averaging 17.2 ppg, 2.4 spg, 4.1 rpg and 3.1 apg ahead of him?

Yes.

Should they have sacrificed a few wins so that they developed their next starter even when their veteran starter was having an All-Star season?

Yes.

Why? Because the Lakers recognized that the team would be better in the long-run if they developed Kobe Bryant.

The situation isn't parallel here (LA had a younger, better player ahead of Kobe than Bibby or Crawford but Kobe also had more potential than Teague) but the idea of developing that young talent for the best interests of the team applies to both scenarios.

The fact is that our depth at PG is not much since Bibby is the only true PG on the roster other than Teague. Bibby's health is a known liability and his defense continues to get worse.

We will regret it later this year or, if we get lucky, next year if we don't develop Teague. The fact that Teague is playing very well this year and making very few mistakes (46 assists against 13 turnovers) should make it easier to give him a consistent role on the team. Bibby should remain the starter and carry the heavy load but Teague should absolutely be getting consistent minutes for his development.

Morris lacks the skill and upsdie and Josh/Horford are young enough that minutes for Randolph aren't warranted in the same way.

Kobe's playing time in his first 23 games: ( played in 21 of the Lakers first 23 games )

20 minutes or more: 4 games ( and all of those games were either double-digit losses or wins by the Lakers )

10 - 19 minutes: 5 games

less than 10 minutes: 12 games

DNP: 2 ( Nov. 22nd and Nov. 24th . . he may have been hurt or it may have been a regular DNP, I don't know )

Minutes per game: 10.6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/1997/

Teague's playing time in his first 23 games: ( played in 21 of the Hawks first 23 games )

20 minutes or more: 5 games ( and all of those games were either double-digit losses or wins by the Hawks )

10 - 19 minutes: 4 games

less than 10 minutes: 12 games

DNP: 2 ( Nov. 3rd and Nov. 29th . . . Woody just didn't play him )

Minutes per game: 10.8

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/teaguje01/gamelog/2010/

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jeff_teague/career_stats.html

LOL . . so in their first 23 games, Teague and Kobe have been used almost EXACTLY ALIKE and in the exact same situations.

So much for the checkmate @ jy21 It was a nice try by him though.

And as you can see, if you clicked on the Kobe link, Kobe only played more than 20 minutes in a game in his rookie year, 20 times, while he got less than 10 minutes 24 times. Like the Hawks are doing with Teague, the Lakers brought Kobe along slowly. By midseason, Kobe was able to play extended minutes if need be.

You guys just need to start trusting the coach. He knows what he's doing with Teague. There is no sense trying to put too much on the kid right now, if we have capable guards who can handle the load. Woody has said that his minutes will increase as the season progresses. So you guys just need to trust the coach, and watch Teague slowly develop.

Contrary to popular belief, he was doing the same thing with Acie in his first year, but Acie got hurt . . . twice.

Trust the coach people.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

RD, I think you have hit on something that is a big problem for Woody. He has to find some way to justify benching players. However, like you said, it doesn't apply to everybody. JJ plays lots of minutes regardless of how he plays. For 3 years, Marvin played starters minutes and he wasn't the best player at his position. I doubt we would ever see a time when Josh screws up and is immediately sent to the bench. I think the thing is that Woody like most coaches believe that you have to let players play through bad moments. The problem is that this certainly doesn't apply for guys on Woody's bench. He has 2 sets of rules. One for starters and another for bench players. The bench player has to earn every millisecond of play. The starter is just put out there. We would love to see him be like other coaches who develop players... however, if he did that, it would cost us wins during the season. Still if he did that, when we needed these guys, we would be more confident that they could play for long stretches. Nothing was worst than watching Solo in the playoffs. The kid had a lot of potential but had barely played so he looked like crap playing in the playoffs. I hope Woody has learned from that.

Every coach I've ever seen, has 2 sets of rules, when it comes to starters and bench players. This isn't rocket science folks. If you have a player on the bench who is messing up, why leave him in the game, when you can put the starter back into a game? If the answer is to leave him in while he learns from his mistakes . . . fine. But you might lose games while that player is learning. So if you don't want to lose games because of a bench player, then you play it safe and put the starter back in.

If we go by your theory and AHF's, Larry Brown is messing up as well. Like Woody, he absolutely LOVES Flip Murray. This means that Acie doesn't even dress on most nights. And because he loves Flip, D.J. Augustin's playing time has been cut almost in half, so he's not being fully developed either. And D.J. didn't have a bad year last year either.

People kill me acting like Woody is some alien coach, that does things that other coaches don't do . . . like timed substitutions ( which is a staple of Doc Rivers and Phil Jackson's coaching philosophy )

Trust the head coach.

Edited December 16, 2009 by northcyde

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And I'll type what I typed on the AJC blog last night . . .

If we were to do what some people want, and use the "let every player on the 10-man rotation play 12 - 15 minutes a game" theory, we'd be a 12 - 11 ballclub right now.

The starters were playing like crap to begin the year ( minus Crawford ). And defensively, if 3 of the bench players were in the game, the other team was going on a run. So on those occasions when all 5 played at the same time, it got ugly, unless Crawford had it going offensively. The defense of the 2nd unit was atrocious. They were simply not ready, or hadn't played together enough to know each others game.

At 17 - 6, we have plenty of time to develop the kid. Plenty of time.

People simply has to trust the coach to get it done, that's all.

[spotatl]

I'll continue to trust Woodson's judgement on young players. People were crucifying Woodson for not playing Acie enough- turns out that Acie was just a terrible pick and he didn't even have his 4th year team option- Woodson just recognized it before the fans did. People crucified Woodson for not using Salim right- it turns out that Salim is now out of the league because he simply wasn't good enough and Woodson recognized it before anyone else here did. People crucified Woodson for his handling of Sheldon- he is now a journeman.

I want to see Teague do great against backups- then I'll start giving him consistent minutes. I think early in the season the lack of a summer league hurt Teague's development and he simply wasn't ready. Now that he is showing more signs of being useful I'm fine with him getting more minutes. But I don't believe in giving minutes to people who aren't ready where they are set up to fail. Make people earn playing time in practice. Make people earn playing time playing against backups. THEN give them a bigger role- don't just play people because you think you are supposed to play them no matter what. And really thats what many people want- Teague to get 10 minutes no matter what.

[AHF]

There is no sense trying to put too much on the kid right now, if we have capable guards who can handle the load. Woody has said that his minutes will increase as the season progresses. So you guys just need to trust the coach, and watch Teague slowly develop.

First, I hope that Woodson ends up playing Teague more than 20 minutes one out of every 4 games this season and that Teague averages in the range of 15 minutes per game. Teague is two years older than Kobe was and should be more ready to contribute on the floor.

(In terms of the numbers, let's be real with this. Teague has had no injuries. Teague is currently averaging 9.9 mpg unless you think that playing someone 1 minute should lower their mpg more than playing 0 minutes. A DNP is a game with 0 minutes.)

Second, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe our guards, minus Teague, can handle the load all season and next season (and I recognize you didn't say this). Unlike the Lakers, we don't have a young All-Star at PG. We have an old, declining but smart and productive PG in Bibby. Bibby's D has been a liability in the past and may soon be to the point that we just can't have him on the floor for extended minutes against someone like Rondo who is so much faster than Bibby that he just owns him. Bibby has a significant history of injuries that have mostly left him playing hurt but sometimes have led to longer periods out (he played roughly 50% of the season two years ago).

Others may disagree, but I think Crawford is not a viable PG other than for playing some fill-in minutes (he plays roughly 10 mpg at PG - http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL3.HTM#bypos). He is scorer and needs to be responsible for doing that more than running the offense - particularly since he is one of two good iso scorers on this team and the iso is our main halfcourt set.

Hence, unlike the Lakers, I think our team is going to be SOL if we don't develop Teague this season. I thought Acie would fill this role but now Teague needs to do it on an accelarated timetable.

The key is giving Teague a consistent role on the team. Kobe Bryant played 5 minutes and change or less 22% of the time in his first 23 games. Teague has played 5 minutes and change or less in more than 50% of his first 23 games. This makes sense with Kobe since he had a young, All-Star ahead of him and the Lakers would have been fine getting nothing from Kobe his rookie and sophmore seasons. They still recognized it was important enough to give him the time to develop, though. We don't have the same luxury, IMO, since we will need Teague this year when injuries or defense limit Bibby.

[Gray Mule]

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

The thing that really, really bothers me:

The game is out of reach, either the Hawks or our opponent has such a big lead, it's over.

This is not a 10 point spread with 3 minutes to go. Those games are winnable by either

one of the teams.

No. The score is 98-55 or some such wide spread. With this score, EVERY bench player

should be on the floor. The final five minutes should belong to the guys on the end of the

bench. If they are not good enough to play now, release them.

Young players, who we expect to improve, must be developed by playing. Our own Agent 0

is a prime example. Woody is playing and developing him! (Gasp!) Our future PG.

Other players, down at the end of the bench are either older guys with a little bit still left in the

tank or younger guys who are hanging on for dear life. No point in playing these guys when

the game is on the line. Nope. But, when it's out of reach, get them out on the floor and let

everyone see what they can do.

:thumbsupsmileyanim:

[TheNorthCydeRises]

First, I hope that Woodson ends up playing Teague more than 20 minutes one out of every 4 games this season and that Teague averages in the range of 15 minutes per game. Teague is two years older than Kobe was and should be more ready to contribute on the floor.

(In terms of the numbers, let's be real with this. Teague has had no injuries. Teague is currently averaging 9.9 mpg unless you think that playing someone 1 minute should lower their mpg more than playing 0 minutes. A DNP is a game with 0 minutes.)

Now see, you're being dishonest here, trying to manipulate his playing time numbers by adding in the 0 minutes for DNPs. If you get a DNP, you didn't play. If you didn't play, you have no stats. So if you're going to make that adjustment to his mpg numbers, you gotta adjust his numbers across the board. Using that line of thinking, his points, assists, rebounds, steals and even turnovers will be lower.

Second, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe our guards, minus Teague, can handle the load all season and next season (and I recognize you didn't say this). Unlike the Lakers, we don't have a young All-Star at PG. We have an old, declining but smart and productive PG in Bibby. Bibby's D has been a liability in the past and may soon be to the point that we just can't have him on the floor for extended minutes against someone like Rondo who is so much faster than Bibby that he just owns him. Bibby has a significant history of injuries that have mostly left him playing hurt but sometimes have led to longer periods out (he played roughly 50% of the season two years ago).

All I'm doing, is trusting the coach in terms of his development. If Teague continues to prove that he won't be a liability when he comes into a game, Woody WILL play him. But he's not going to cut into Bibby's minutes, if he plays erratic. And he's not going to cut into Bibby's minutes if Bibby is shooting lights out from the field. The last 3 games, Teague has been great though. If Bibby suffers an injury that causes him to miss time, Teague simply has to do what all bench players do, and that's step up.

Others may disagree, but I think Crawford is not a viable PG other than for playing some fill-in minutes (he plays roughly 10 mpg at PG - http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL3.HTM#bypos). He is scorer and needs to be responsible for doing that more than running the offense - particularly since he is one of two good iso scorers on this team and the iso is our main halfcourt set.

Hence, unlike the Lakers, I think our team is going to be SOL if we don't develop Teague this season. I thought Acie would fill this role but now Teague needs to do it on an accelarated timetable.

You have to remember our offensive system though. Like Portland with Brandon Roy, we try to run everything through JJ. This is why Crawford can easily play with JJ in the backcourt. If the offense is flowing through JJ, Crawford still becomes the scorer that JJ can pass to. Woody will continue to develop Teague, but he's not going to leave him in the game if he's playing bad. If the team starts to post a significant negative +/- number while he's in the game, he's probably not going to play as much as we want him to play. I personally have no problem with that. If he continues to post positive +/- numbers while he's in the game, he'll probably start playing more.

I think that's what we should look for in the coming months. If Teague comes into the game in the 1st half, and does something like score 7 points and put up 3 assists, while the team extends a lead, does Woody leave him in for a few more minutes, or does he take him out after about 5 minutes of playing time? Then in the 2nd half, does he get a chance to impact the game again?

The key is giving Teague a consistent role on the team. Kobe Bryant played 5 minutes and change or less 22% of the time in his first 23 games. Teague has played 5 minutes and change or less in more than 50% of his first 23 games. This makes sense with Kobe since he had a young, All-Star ahead of him and the Lakers would have been fine getting nothing from Kobe his rookie and sophmore seasons. They still recognized it was important enough to give him the time to develop, though. We don't have the same luxury, IMO, since we will need Teague this year when injuries or defense limit Bibby.

And I made a mistake on Kobe's numbers. The Lakers' 23rd game was on Dec. 10th of that year vs Sacramento.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1997_games.html

The Sacramento game was Kobe's 18th game that he played in, So he actually had 5 DNPs in his first 23 games. In addition to the Nov. 22nd and 24th games, Kobe didn't play on opening night Nov. 1st vs Phoenix, in the Dec.. 3rd game vs Seattle, and in the Dec. 6th game vs Orlando. I didn't double check the Laker schedule thoroughy enough, in comparison to Kobe's game log. My bad for that mistake.

So just to adjust his numbers:

20 or more minutes: 4 games

10 - 19 minutes: 3 games

less than 10 minutes: 11 games . . . ( played 5 minutes or less in 3 games = 17% . . . 8 games ( if you're going to count the DNPs ) = 44% of the time )

I understand your concerns. I just think people are making too big of a deal of our rookie PG getting consistent minutes right now, when we have 2 proven vet guards who can play his position if need be. If he earns the minutes, like he's been doing lately, then by all means give them to him. We probably won't see anymore DNPs from Teague. If we do, we have to look and see how Bibby is playing. He might be shooting lights out, but with us still in a tight game, if that's the case. I have no problem with Teague playing 10 - 15 minutes a game. But I trust the coach to dish out those minutes how he sees fit.

Trust the coach.

( NOTE: After 23 games, the Lakers were 16 - 7 . . . . they finished the season 56 - 26, one game out of 1st in the Pacific Division, and 4th in the conference . . . they lost in the 2nd round 4 - 1 to Utah ( the 2nd best team in the league behind Chicago ), a Utah team that they had lost to by 16, 26, and 12 points, before finally beating them by 2 in the next to the last game of the season ( kind of sounds like us vs Orlando ) . . . . . Hawks also finished 56 - 26 that year. )

Edited December 16, 2009 by northcyde

[AHF]

I'll keep this short and to two points.

First, a player doesn't control whether he plays. A coach decides how much time a player who is available gets. I am being completely above-board and very open when I am counting games where Woodson gives Teague 0 mins as a game in which Teague got 0 minutes. According to your standard, Teague could play in 2 of the next 20 games and if he gets 48 minutes between those games I am supposed to believe Woodson is giving Teague 24 mpg over that time. In my minutes post I am calculating individual player minutes very simply. Total minutes/games available to play.

Second, I remember when the offense was run through JJ and we had an inferior scoring PG (Lue) next to him. It wasn't pretty. It shouldn't surprise you that I am not really excited about the idea of running the offense even more through JJ than it already is. Bibby taking over that PG role was huge for this team and I don't buy that we will do great things, as this team may be capable of, if we don't have a point in the game. Scoring guards who can pass don't cut it, IMO. A Crawford/JJ backcourt is too much like having a Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, etc. type of player at the point.

Bottomline is that you emphatically trust Woodson whereas I see a coach who let Josh Smith shoot jumpers for 5 years, who forgot about Josh Smith on the bench one game, who sits players (IMO) irrationally in an effort to avoid them fouling out, etc. I like what I am seeing from Woodson better this year than any year of his career but I sure don't trust him to contingency plan for the playoffs when he ran JJ into the ground last season so he could make the All-Star team.

Edited December 17, 2009 by AHF

[tremor]

Summary: JT is second coming of KB at PG.

[Atlantaholic]

We struggle the most when Crawford is out there running the point... Even yesterday it was our worst lineup. The dude IS NOT a PG.

[Joker]

First, I hope that Woodson ends up playing Teague more than 20 minutes one out of every 4 games this season and that Teague averages in the range of 15 minutes per game. Teague is two years older than Kobe was and should be more ready to contribute on the floor.

(In terms of the numbers, let's be real with this. Teague has had no injuries. Teague is currently averaging 9.9 mpg unless you think that playing someone 1 minute should lower their mpg more than playing 0 minutes. A DNP is a game with 0 minutes.)

Second, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe our guards, minus Teague, can handle the load all season and next season (and I recognize you didn't say this). Unlike the Lakers, we don't have a young All-Star at PG. We have an old, declining but smart and productive PG in Bibby. Bibby's D has been a liability in the past and may soon be to the point that we just can't have him on the floor for extended minutes against someone like Rondo who is so much faster than Bibby that he just owns him. Bibby has a significant history of injuries that have mostly left him playing hurt but sometimes have led to longer periods out (he played roughly 50% of the season two years ago).

Others may disagree, but I think Crawford is not a viable PG other than for playing some fill-in minutes (he plays roughly 10 mpg at PG - http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL3.HTM#bypos). He is scorer and needs to be responsible for doing that more than running the offense - particularly since he is one of two good iso scorers on this team and the iso is our main halfcourt set.

Hence, unlike the Lakers, I think our team is going to be SOL if we don't develop Teague this season. I thought Acie would fill this role but now Teague needs to do it on an accelarated timetable.

The key is giving Teague a consistent role on the team. Kobe Bryant played 5 minutes and change or less 22% of the time in his first 23 games. Teague has played 5 minutes and change or less in more than 50% of his first 23 games. This makes sense with Kobe since he had a young, All-Star ahead of him and the Lakers would have been fine getting nothing from Kobe his rookie and sophmore seasons. They still recognized it was important enough to give him the time to develop, though. We don't have the same luxury, IMO, since we will need Teague this year when injuries or defense limit Bibby.

Do not compare Kobe to Teague.