Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by detteam, Jan 18, 2009.
Jeff Van Gundy: Pistons are shell of their old selves | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press
Stuck/ AI/ Rip. Whichever one comes off the bench should be able to play the point. That eliminated Rip. Since AI is too big of a star to come off the bench, then that eliminated him. Stuckey is the obvious choice. Unless we concede that this season is hopeless. In that case, AI should go to the bench or be bought out.
This is not AI love talking. This is about business. You don't bench him or buy him out. AI is one of the biggest endorsement breadwinners and money makers in the NBA. You crap on him, you're cutting your throat with the big agents. It's totally not a good idea. Look at what happened to the Clippers when the agents and players decided to screw the team. No one worth a damn is playing, they are all "injured", maybe, forever....
Buying him out wouldn't be crapping on him.
It would. Is it guaranteed he would catch on somewhere for a minimum deal and get to start? Do we really believe that cutting AI is not going to affect his marketability and value in the offseason? I'm not worried about AI. There is a large gravy train of power (backroom) players involved when someone does something that affects business. That's just how I see it.
Wow, if he couldn't land a starting job with any of the 29 other teams in the league for the MINIMUM, why the hell are we starting him? If his effect on every team he's played on the last few years hasn't stopped him from being a lock to start the all-star game in the fans' eyes, I don't think he has to worry. As for free agent targets that might frown upon benching Iverson... Those are probably free agents we don't want a part of. The ones that are dedicated to winning games rather than putting up numbers would understand that Iverson's game fits better off the bench on this team. I don't think anyone worth while would blame the Pistons for trying to win games rather than just calling it quits on the season just to watch the AI show, and crap on our franchise corner stone.
Well he could go to the Clippers. Right now, I still think AI is the better player than Stuckey. Maybe it's because I really don't want to miss the playoffs.
Who is he going to take minutes and a starting spot from? Baron Davis? Eric Gordon? I don't see it. Gordon is a beast, and Baron is locked into a long-term deal Better individually? Sure. But I don't believe Iverson is helping us win games. The biggest defensive issues start with him (but don't end there). He demands way too many shots for 1 guy who has poor shot selection (inefficient), on a team with talent. He is not capable of "Running the offense". He's fine at making those high-risk passes (though that style is more prone to nights like against the cavs; 1 assist, 5 TOs), but cannot make the simple pass consistently. And after a game where he takes 19 shots and has 5 TO's, he complains about not being "A Focal Point" of the offense. Not "The" focal point. "A". How jaded does a guy have to be to think 19 shots (7 more than anyone else on the team) isn't a focal point? Where Iverson would help us MOST to win games, is easily as the 25mpg sparkplug off the bench. A role where he can come in, fire away, and just dominate the offense next to primarily bench players.
Great post. Dice, Jmax or Amir, Afflalo & Tay can be his robots.
[quote/] Better individually? Sure. But I don't believe Iverson is helping us win games. The biggest defensive issues start with him (but don't end there). He demands way too many shots for 1 guy who has poor shot selection (inefficient), on a team with talent. He is not capable of "Running the offense". He's fine at making those high-risk passes (though that style is more prone to nights like against the cavs; 1 assist, 5 TOs), but cannot make the simple pass consistently. And after a game where he takes 19 shots and has 5 TO's, he complains about not being "A Focal Point" of the offense. Not "The" focal point. "A". How jaded does a guy have to be to think 19 shots (7 more than anyone else on the team) isn't a focal point? Where Iverson would help us MOST to win games, is easily as the 25mpg sparkplug off the bench. A role where he can come in, fire away, and just dominate the offense next to primarily bench players.[/quote] Yeah great post. I totally agree with everything you have said, but i can't see it happening. Unfortunately. Oh, and a side note, i think Rip is awesome!!
The robots sounds a lot less intimidating than the zoo crew.
You've done it!
Pistons' best chance? Bring A.I. off bench | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press It's like musical bench player!
I don't think the team is good enough to have Iverson playing only 25 minutes. I really like Stuckey, but I still think you have to rank our guards as follows:IversonHamiltonStuckeyAfflaloBynumI think most would agree that Iverson and Hamilton are among our best-conditioned athletes, and playing an average of around 35mpg is easy for them. This leaves 26 mpg for Stuckey, who is still developing. And since he's still developing, it should be perfectly fine and reasonable to have him coming off the bench in support of two All-Stars. So why can't we do a reverse-Spurs, and instead of bringing one of our best guards off the bench shortly into the first quarter, we start our two best guards and send one of them to the bench sooner? The key here IMO is to ask Iverson to play different roles depending on who he's with. So start with Iverson (PG) and Hamilton (SG) for 6 mins. Iverson is asked to be a facilitator (play like Chauncey). Then at 6 mins. go with Stuckey (PG) and Hamilton (SG). Start 2Q with Stuckey (PG) and Iverson (SG), asking Iverson to be a scorer. At the 6 min. mark switch to Iverson (PG) and Hamilton (SG). Ride the hot hand between the two. Repeat for the 2nd half and you end up with approx. 36 mins. for Iverson and Hamilton and 24 for Stuckey. Of course this leaves Afflalo out of the guard rotation entirely. Can he spell Tay for 12-15 minutes a game?
The problem with this rotation is that you are again asking AI to defer which doesn't make any sense. That is not in his make up; just ask him. If you start Stuckey and Rip you get a consistency to start games. Stuck is more then happy to make the pass to Rip off the screen and feels like he is contributing. I am not sure AI would feel the same way. If you go with Stuck for 6-8 mins in the first and then bring in AI to run the point for Stuck; you will have gotten Rip into a rhythm and a defense that hopefully is now trying to cut him off. This will open up the floor for AI to drive and score or still be able to kick out for Rip who hopefully is hitting his shots. Start the second with Stuck and AI and run them together for 6-8 minutes. Finish the half Stuck and Rip or if AI has it going and Stuck is struggling you could finish with AI and Rip also, This would be where the coach would need to have a feel for his players and the flow of the game. :fingerscr Repeat for the second half. One of the commentators made a statement during the end of the Cleveland broadcast. He said that this is when the Detroit teams of the past used to out-execute you to the finish line. They would not make mistakes or wild shots and just wear you down. We don't do that anymore and I think that is the difference between our club with Rip on the floor instead of AI. We need to know where we are going with the ball and the shots we want to get in the closing minutes of halves and games. We need to get that identity back that we are not going to beat ourselves.
Based on career achievements, sure. But on this team this season I'd say it's, 1. Stuck, 2. Rip, 3. Iverson. Rip has been up and down all year, Iverson has been mostly down with a few flashes here and there. For being our "developing young player", Rodney has been the most consistent out of the 3. He'll have bad games here and there like all players, but Rip has gone through long stretches of being off, and AI has rarely been "on" at all. His streakyness isn't game to game as much as it is quarter to quarter. He'll have terrible stretches defensively and shooting the ball in almost every game, then hopefully he'll get hot at some point and put in a few baskets in a row. That's why the offense is so feast or famine. What they can play physically is irrelevant. It's what will win the most games. The best fit. Iverson has 1 mode that he can be effective in. That is why he didn't work out in Denver. He's always in "scoring mode", so you can't ask him to play facilitator, and then switch back and forth. He has never been able to do that in his entire career.
Yep he didnt work out in denver. After 20 years, denver achieved their first 50-win season and possibly in toughest western conference in the last 20 years with anthony freakin carter as starter
A. A team that was 1-8 in the playoffs during AI's tenure is not any kind of success. B. They were 32-8 to end the 04-05 season without Iverson. They had 49 wins that season despite starting the year 17-25. They swapped Andre Miller for AI and did not improve despite the fact that Denver plays the absolute perfect style for him (Fast paced, no defense). C. Denver wanted to avoid playing Iverson at PG so badly, that they started Anthony Carter. It's making my point.
Iverson would be asked to play different roles on offense during the course of the game. That is, to pick and choose his touches in order to make an effort to get everyone rolling. I find it hard to believe that a player who wants to win as much as he says he does couldn't buy into that. Kobe and LeBron can do it. Tim Duncan doesn't demand that the offense run through him on every play. To start the game, he'd be asked to run PG. In this role he should look to get Rip, Sheed and Tay involved in the offense, but just like any other good PG he should take advantage of what the defense gives him. Iverson has averaged over 7 assists/game in each of the past 4 seasons, which placed him in the top 10 among all players in each of those seasons (and ahead of Billups in 3 out of 4!). To me this indicates a willingness to share the ball.
Separate names with a comma.