Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by 2Tough4You, Jan 10, 2010.
Exactly. Just keep Ben back as the goalie.
He would need to borrow Rips mask !!
There is no rule that says a basketball player is banned from using an old school goalie mask, is there?
Thats right- because Shaq wore one at last years all star game >>
I've been trying to come up with a response to this...but there's just no way.
This commentary from Stuckey is laughable. Of course the #1 player who's been a disappointment is now determining that the way to success is to do more of what he's already doing poorly. Forcing things. Great.
Not only that, but here comes the Ben Wallace is a hindrance crowd...man...even playing at his level this year, he hasn't made it to the All-Star break before the Anti-Ben Brigade is back in full force.
I want to take this season apart and go over all the details, but what's the use? I guess I could really get worked up about all this, but this team his awful and it's just not worth the energy.
We need changes...BAD. "Rebuilding on the Fly" was as bad a project as picking Darko and we need to take the same medicine...go in a completely different direction.
I feel like I should disagree with Low. And normally I wouldn't advise such a thing.
IMHO, we are only a few pieces away (Amare the main one, if that is possible or not) to actually being a good running team. Obtaining a 5 that can run the floor next to CV (maybe even Biedrins), and a point guard that is unselfish who wants to push the ball (Maybe Jordan Farmar), dump Rip and Tay for nothing more than cap space, and get the young guys minutes, it could happen.
Bryon Scott at the helm.
Farmar facilitating the break (notice I did not say running the offense), Stuckey playing the 2, Daye at the 3, CV at the 4, and Amare at the 5, on paper looks like they could run.
You have Bynum backing up Farmar, BG coming off the bench behind Stuckey, or even vice versa, JJ backing up Daye, Max backing up CV and Amare, even using JJ at the 4 when needed and Summers playing both the 3 and 4. All of those pieces we have in place, except for Farmar and Amare. Two crucial pieces I know. Just a thought.
You're suggesting putting a running team out there that includes Charlie V?
Amare is horrible on defense.
I like what Stuckey is saying...I don't think Ben is holding them back as much as Tay and Rip falling into their halfcourt comfort zone.
You don't need Farmar, and certainly not to start. You can play Bynum/Stuckey, with Gordon backing up both. There are not enough minutes for 4 guards. We are already in this quandary.
We have the 2nd slowest tempo in the league... but it seems to me that tempo is not very correlated with winning basketball.
There are fast paced teams that are terrible and slow teams that are very strong. When you sort the teams by pace, there is no noticable pattern.
So, are we considering running because it is a good idea, or because we are searching for a change? I was initially suggesting that our big men are weak in a half court game on offense and that weakness would be lessened if they weren't stuck in half court sets all the time.
The point that has been raised is that we may not have all of the pieces necessary to be a running team and why force square peg into a round hole? The point that Ben Wallace might not fit that style can be argued either way. In general, older players are not right for this. Also, he's a fantastic defensive help defender and in a chaotic environment, he may not get to show that ability.
We have some of the parts, but probaby not all of them. We'd probably be a very mediocre team, even if we improved from our current state. To become a good running team, we'd have to look for other players to add to the mix and we'd be committing to a new syle of play that may not be the right answer.
My suggestion is that if we are going to suck, we may as well suck at a faster, more entertaining tempo. Just force a running style on the team with the current personnel and don't let it affect the long term direction of the team.
Unless you thought Stuckey was going to develop into some Chris Paul/Deron Williams type of pure point guard, I don't see how you can call Stuckey a "disappointment" this year. Other than Ben's defensive play earlier in the year, and maybe Jerebko/Daye here and there, Stuckey has been the LONE bright spot on this team. That's not to say he hasn't had his own struggles too... but look at the team he has around him.
Ya know...I could understand screwing up my order if the guy I asked to make my fast food was a mechanic. But, you make fast food FOR A LIVING and you can't get it right...anyway, I digress.
Disagreement doesn't really bother me so, it's cool with me cause there are always new ideas to toss out there.
I think a lot of fans on PF.com may not like is your suggestion for a running team. You can't have a big, strong, dominant big man if you wanna run which begs for more small ball and you KNOW how hated "small ball" is on this forum.
If we dime out Rip and Tay for nothing other than Capp Spayce, then all was have is our awesome weather and Joe D's world reknown "Respect Factor" to bring in a guy like Amare. I see no scenario where he would play here.
Also, if we are going to bring in Farmar, we might as well start Bynum and look for a back up because we won't have a player anywhere near Kobe's ability to hide Farmar's shortcomings.
For the long run, we need to build a team that can play half court basketball and execute efficiently because that's what we are going to need if we plan on competing once we reach the playoffs. If we start off by building a running team, when we think we are ready to compete again, we are going to have to reinvent ourselves to be able to play the post season half court game.
Yes, it's much more fun to watch (I HATE that phrase with a passion), but I think in the long run, we'd all rather win than be exciting and sometimes winning and excitement don't always go together (Just ask the Spurs and the Patriots).
Chris Paul/Deron Williams no. But, if you're going to bounce Chauncey Billups for a worthless Allen Iverson, then I expect to see no less than 75% of what Billups brought to the table from Stuckey (Especially if you're going to make that kind of decision after 1 year). We haven't seen 45% of what Billups gave us so far.
Looking at the team around Stuckey is exactly why he's a disappointment. Just tossing up a bunch of points doesn't make you the best thing a team has going for it. Arguably, he hasn't had much to work with, but he's done nothing (generally speaking) to improve the play of his teammates as well as himself. He's shown him self to be a poor (or questionable at best) outside shooter, and he's shown no capacity for being an extension of the coach on the floor. Just dribbling the ball up the court in less than 8 secs. doesn't make you a PG. Stuckey is supposed to be the PG. If he was excelling as a PG, I would be fine with him. He is not. He's doing fine as the Leading Scorer, but our team doesn't field a lineup of C, PF, SF, SG, LS.
Sure, there isn't a lot in terms of having 600 scoring options, but that's not all that Stuckey is responsible for. If we were accusing him of not being able to score, then that would be inaccurate. However, he's being accused of not being a good PG IRREGARDLESS of how much he scores and right now, that's the only thing he does relatively well. He shows no floor leadership, no recognizable understanding of how to run the team, and even less ability to get anyone else involved. That's a big problem if you're talking about your starting PG as opposed to your starting LS.
From what I have experienced, teams that run the ball are not the least bit concerned with defense...which is why I suggested Amare.
I agree with the half-court mindset. I like the half court style of play, I enjoy defense, I really enjoyed back when we used PRESS! Just commenting on what Stuckey has said, and some of the responses on the forum. IF we are going to be a running team, changes will need to be made, as they already do.
Well, he's not a point guard (he rarely played the position in collegiate ball) and I think it's time that we stop expecting him to do all of those things that the better point guards in the league do. It's pretty obvious that he is a natural scoring guard. He's playing out of position, and until Dumars can make a move, he will continue to. Stuckey is not exactly being put in the best possible situation to succeed.
That falls on the shoulders of Dumars, not Stuckey.
I agree with you there, but if we are going to stick with the current game plan and not make a serious move for a PG, then Stuckey should be able/willing to make the necessary adjustments.
I don't blame Stuckey 100%, but he's the one making the statement and he's the one that hasn't adjusted to improve his performance in his given role. That's all I'm sayin. I lay 75% of this on Joe and 25% on Stuckey for his play.
Now you are stretching it. 45% is a pretty harsh assessment of Rodney Stuckey compared to Billups. It is interesting to compare Chauncey's numbers from 03-04, his second year as the starting PG, to Stuckeys year this year.
The numbers aren't that far off from one, Billups owns assists, scoring efficiency, and three point shooting, but Stuckey boards better and has been playing with how many different line-ups, where Billups had great consistency from his surrounding 4.
You are selling Stuck short here.
Last year, Stuckey was giving us a fraction of what Billups would've provided. This year, it's less than Billups's hypothetical production. Next year, it'll be about equal. After that... well, you get the point.
I still would've done the CB-AI trade with what I know today. That chapter of Pistons ball was done and we all know it. We can question what Joe's done since that trade, but that trade itself was the right thing to do.
45% of the wins.
Separate names with a comma.