jibikao
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Posts
- 3,390
- Reaction score
- 0
What a bummer... Frye seems to have the most highlights right now.
I guess they can start both Lopez and Gortat?
I guess they can start both Lopez and Gortat?
Frye out 2-3 weeks
- Thread starter Mainstreet
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,891
- Reaction score
- 16,712
Wow, am I the only one who just had a Stockard Channing flashback?
There are worse things you can do.
Steve
Zbigniew
Rookie
exactly
JS22
Say Vandelay!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 211
I used to like the idea of Lopez and Gortat starting together. But now? Not so much.
1. The spacing would be terrible. Nash would constantly get double and triple teamed on the P&R. I see a lot of turnovers.
2. Siler and Warrick would become your primary bigs off the bench. I like watching Siler play as much as anyone else. But can he give you a legit 15-20 minutes a game?
I HATE small-ball but I think the Suns are better off plugging in Pietrus for Frye and bringing Childress off the bench at the 3. Pietrus is a pretty decent rebounder for his size, good defender, and keeps the offense stable as someone who can space the floor.
However, I'd start Gortat alongside him. Lopez and Pietrus together would be a disaster.
That said, I don't even really like the idea. But I think it's better than the alternative.
1. The spacing would be terrible. Nash would constantly get double and triple teamed on the P&R. I see a lot of turnovers.
2. Siler and Warrick would become your primary bigs off the bench. I like watching Siler play as much as anyone else. But can he give you a legit 15-20 minutes a game?
I HATE small-ball but I think the Suns are better off plugging in Pietrus for Frye and bringing Childress off the bench at the 3. Pietrus is a pretty decent rebounder for his size, good defender, and keeps the offense stable as someone who can space the floor.
However, I'd start Gortat alongside him. Lopez and Pietrus together would be a disaster.
That said, I don't even really like the idea. But I think it's better than the alternative.
Never been a fan of them starting together period. That meant small ball with Frye at Center when they went to the bench.
Also, you have see how it benefits our defense to always have a center on the floor. It's time for other guys to step up like Warrik. I think you have to try that first. The 2nd option for me would be for them to try Hill at PF and move Pietrus into the lineup at SF. Hill has shown he can guard some PF.
Also, you have see how it benefits our defense to always have a center on the floor. It's time for other guys to step up like Warrik. I think you have to try that first. The 2nd option for me would be for them to try Hill at PF and move Pietrus into the lineup at SF. Hill has shown he can guard some PF.
We wouldn't have to bench them at the same time. I don't want to run them together either but if Gentry did, it would still be easy to always have Lopez or Gortat on the court at all times. They wouldn't be connected at the hip.
Lopez likes to commit alot of stupid fouls and Gortat can't play 48 minutes. We would end up playing lots of small ball. Lopez would play himself out of every game like he does now. Which means he would bring Lopez to the bench. Gortat can't play the entire game, then in would come Lopez so we have some size. You might as well not be playing them together in the starting lineup at that point.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Gentry said today that Warrick is starting at PF and Childress will play some at the position.
Childress? Oh dear lord. We tried that it was a catastrophic failure. I am sure there must be some Gentry logic in there somewhere for it.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,891
- Reaction score
- 16,712
When was this? I remember him playing a little bit at the power forward position in very short stretches but I can't remember it being remarkable in any way (good or bad). Unless, of course, you're talking about the Knicks game where we tried him at center. I'm not saying you're wrong btw, I just don't remember a catastrophic failure caused by Childress at PF.
Steve
Chaplin
Better off silent
That's simply not true. Sure, we tried Childress at the spot--and that was back when the Hedo experiment was in full force, but certainly not long enough to call it a "colossal failure". Some even likened him to a poor man's Shawn Marion. Not ideal by any means but not a failure either.
jagu
#13 - Legendary
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Posts
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 207
Remember when Childress tipped off the ball in that epic failure of a lineup in the first game against the Knicks !! I love Childress, he brings intangibles and defense. I'm glad the guy gets a shot to play and we might be able to manage through this just because of his long arms and aggressive play. He is also an excellent baseline player which is good with guys like Nash and Brooks penetrating into the lanes.
Just because J-Child doesn't play that is not a reason for people to say he sucks. He does shoot like a girl but hey he is a pretty decent shooter if you look at his career.
Just because J-Child doesn't play that is not a reason for people to say he sucks. He does shoot like a girl but hey he is a pretty decent shooter if you look at his career.
Last edited:
jagu
#13 - Legendary
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Posts
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 207
If I was the coach:
Gortat (the loss of Frye in the starting lineup= more pick and roll offense)
Warrick (more pick and roll offense and still creates spacing with his strong jumpshot)
Hill
Carter (emphasize Carter in the offense and let him do more with Frye missing)
Nash
Lopez
Pietrus
Dudley
Childress
Brooks
The bench can still excel without Gortat and Pietrus/Dudley/Childress is 3 strong defensive players. Brooks can also excel with this lineup because he can create his own shot and also find open players as we have seen.
With Siler with a slight increase in minutes against teams with problematic big men.
Gortat (the loss of Frye in the starting lineup= more pick and roll offense)
Warrick (more pick and roll offense and still creates spacing with his strong jumpshot)
Hill
Carter (emphasize Carter in the offense and let him do more with Frye missing)
Nash
Lopez
Pietrus
Dudley
Childress
Brooks
The bench can still excel without Gortat and Pietrus/Dudley/Childress is 3 strong defensive players. Brooks can also excel with this lineup because he can create his own shot and also find open players as we have seen.
With Siler with a slight increase in minutes against teams with problematic big men.
Absolute Zero
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Posts
- 17,585
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Go J-Chill! I love it. I predict a big time spark out of him tonight. He'll be on the floor with Brooks so the Rockets are going to have to make some adjustments tonight to deal with the speed.
JS22
Say Vandelay!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Posts
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 211
So Warrick and Lopez really are going to start together?
Should be interesting.
Should be interesting.
Chap, I was referring to the one game experiment when they played Childress at the PF spot earlier this season. Sorry but that was a colossal failure. I wasn't referring to Childress playing the SF spot. I don't think he has really gotten enough overall playing time to fully evaluate if he can contribute or not.
I don't object at all to slipping him into the rotation until Frye comes back...provided it isn't playing the PF spot. Maybe he will finally get his chance to show if he can contribute.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
You do remember that Shawn played PF for a few years, right? I'm not sure why you're referring to SF when we're not talking about that. And then the last sentence of your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. Is he a "colossal failure" as a PF, or has he not gotten enough time to evaluate?
He'll definitely play PF--he and Grant Hill will man the spot when Warrick is on the bench, although it would be nice to see Gortat in the spot for a few minutes.
Errntknght
Registered User
If Gortat's minutes stay at 34 and Robin's get upped to 24 (from about 16) then the two of them could be on the floor together for 10 minutes and one of them be in the game at all times. Pretty simple math. They could play together for 5 minutes at the start of the game and the start of the second half, along the lines DD proposed. Rest Marcin first in the first half and second in the second half so he can return to finish the game. Ten minutes less of Warrick...
dodie53
A. O. II
play childress at center
and
pietrus at PF
haha
and
pietrus at PF
haha
oops, wrong thread
Last edited:
I sure do and I remember the Suns getting killed on the inside almost every game Marion played PF. I also remember Marion being twice the player Childress is.
Who is "we"? I thought I was participating. I was specifically commenting on the last time we played Childress at the PF spot it was a disaster....so......I would like to see him get time at SF. I think that is a relevant comment and the very reason I brought up the SF position.
I think if you read the entire sentence it's clear. I said I don't mind him getting in the rotation. I also said as long as it's not playing PF. He also has not gotten enough time to fully evaluate him. Meaning I think he needs more time on the floor. That doesn't mean I want him to play PF to get that time. He could get into the rotation at the SF position.
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
How? Only if one of our other SF's plays the PF position. With or without Frye, we're still stacked at SF, so I'm not sure how you can justify him getting time there all of a sudden.
I guess it would make sense if you're ok with GHill or Pietrus playing PF. Is that what you're saying?
Not sure about Pietrus but I am much more comfortable with Grant against a PF. At least he has experience guarding guys like Dirk.
