How Good Is Our Bench?

It's an OK bench. Not the best, but definitely not the worst anymore. We have some quality players there, but we are still weak at the 3, except if Ebanks really steps it up this year. He needs to defend and hit some open shots. PG is still an issue; and that would also change if Blake could shoot better -- and simply be more aggressive instead of passing up shots. Our backup 2, 4 and 5 are good and I expect them to be very productive this season.

Meeks needs to play D and shoot the 3, but that's what he does anyway.
Jamison simply needs a green light to chuck shots, which was never a problem for him. He is really good at creating his shot, considering he has never been very athletic at all. But he's crafty and likes to shoot anyway.
Finally, Hill is a "garbage man" who plays that vital energy role on this team. He's tough and will rebound well. Not to mention Pau will often slide to the C position and we all know what he can do in the post.

karacha wrote:It's an OK bench. Not the best, but definitely not the worst anymore. We have some quality players there, but we are still weak at the 3, except if Ebanks really steps it up this year. He needs to defend and hit some open shots. PG is still an issue; and that would also change if Blake could shoot better -- and simply be more aggressive instead of passing up shots. Our backup 2, 4 and 5 are good and I expect them to be very productive this season.

Meeks needs to play D and shoot the 3, but that's what he does anyway.
Jamison simply needs a green light to chuck shots, which was never a problem for him. He is really good at creating his shot, considering he has never been very athletic at all. But he's crafty and likes to shoot anyway.
Finally, Hill is a "garbage man" who plays that vital energy role on this team. He's tough and will rebound well. Not to mention Pau will often slide to the C position and we all know what he can do in the post.

Agreed. I say our bench is somewhere between 12-15 best in the league. Which is a huge upgrade over last year.

Well, let's just consider scoring. Our bench scored what... 20 ppg last year ( ), and Blake scored 5 of those points.

That means that -- aside from Blake -- we need Meeks, Hill, Ebanks and Jamison to score 15 to match last year's output. Something tells me they can do that rather easily. In fact, Jamison could probably do that on his own if they gave him the green light to shoot the ball.

Meeks can give you 7-8 ppg on a consistent basis as a bench player if given minutes, and from time to time he can even explode for 20+. Last season he dropped 31 on Cleveland.

Basically, I think we got scoring covered and some guys can also play good defense. PG depth is suspect. Lots of PGs, but no quality whatsoever. Blake is the best after Nash. Ugh.

Yea, if you consider scoring then the bench will be solid.

for example.. lets say the bench scoring goes like this:

blake - 5ppg
meeks 8 ppg
ebanks 5ppg
jamison 10ppg
hill 5ppg

Last year, that would have been good enough for 11th best(tied with 10th) in the league. And our bench is definitely capable of that.
And dont forget the grit and hustle some of the bench players bring.

John3:16 wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:Blake - Stays aggressive and shoots the 3 ball and can dish a few assists, while ONLY playing PG.

Why did you have to remind me of this? Brown having him play SG was pure torture. I've taken plenty of pills to forget about this........ and you bring it up!

It ranks up there as one of the dumbest moves I've seen in my years of watching basketball. And it was done consistently every game at the end of the season and playoffs.

I'm holding out a glimmer of hope that the FO just says screw it and brings in Barbosa to play the point or another SF and move Ebanks to the 2 and Meeks to the point and just rolls with it. I mean all Blake does is dribble the ball up the court and pass it off and stands around or over dribbles in circles. He doesn't do anything that would constitute being called a "PG".

But back to reality and the dreading of seeing Blake have to play 18 minutes a game.

I was never able to understand why Blake had to play the SG. Yes, he is fairly tall and scrappy. But how can you be a SG if you never shoot the ball. Isn't shooting... well... in the job description for a shooting guard?

Sasha was a much better shooting guard (he did score over 11 ppg for the Nets after all). And a better PG actually.

i'd say the bench is decent at best

but definitely a major upgrade over that atrocity they called a bench last year, god that was terrible

karacha wrote:Well, let's just consider scoring. Our bench scored what... 20 ppg last year ( ), and Blake scored 5 of those points.

That means that -- aside from Blake -- we need Meeks, Hill, Ebanks and Jamison to score 15 to match last year's output. Something tells me they can do that rather easily. In fact, Jamison could probably do that on his own if they gave him the green light to shoot the ball.

Meeks can give you 7-8 ppg on a consistent basis as a bench player if given minutes, and from time to time he can even explode for 20+. Last season he dropped 31 on Cleveland.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting 20 a night from the Jamison/Meeks duo

i dont see any problems with bench offense what concerns me is on the defensive side
bench players will be playing atleast 1 starter so offense should be
what we need is an athletic 3 and an immovable/defensive 5 off the bench
we are very weak at the 5spot IMO-after D12 we dont have anyone-Pau can slide to 5 but look what happened to him
Hill is not a post defender he is a hustle guy-so wen he is hustling someone needs to man the middle

As for the atlethic wing-we need someone to bring energy from the bench Meeks a set up shooter and ebanks is tentative.Nash require dive cutters to be effective
i hope we can address this 2 holes
i dont have issues with bench pgs as they are veteran pgs and if we address the big man hole in the middle
they can be effective just staying with their man

I'd say the bench is about as good as it possibly can be, all things considered. The only way it could have been better IMO is if Sessions had opted in and we had amnestied Blake, and if Grant Hill had joined us as well. That would have improved the only two question mark areas at backup PG and SF. Seeing as how Sessions jumped ship once Nash came on board and Grant Hill signed with the fake LA team what could Mitch do? It's out of his hands.

As it is now, I'm totally satisfied. I'd prefer more consistent players at each of those positions but I'm ok with giving Ebanks a shot at developing and one more shot for Blake to prove he can be valuable to us in some capacity.

In the meantime, Mitch re-signing Hill, picking up Jamison for next to nothing and same with Jodie Meeks? Terrific GM moves there by the man.

I think we're ready for war. The guy I have the most concern about is Ebanks just because he's unproven. But if we are able to develop him it could be a great opportunity for us.

You know what would've made this off-season perfect and filled our backup 3 spot? Grant Hill. Can play good D and can score (although his shot did take a nose dive last season). Type of guy that's perfect in the locker room too.

John3:16 wrote:You know what would've made this off-season perfect and filled our backup 3 spot? Grant Hill. Can play good D and can score (although his shot did take a nose dive last season). Type of guy that's perfect in the locker room too.

Very true, but all in all I'm happy with our bench and I really think Ebanks will surprise us to now that he knows without a doubt that he will be the backup 3. He no longer has to worry about PT or anyone else coming in the game after MWP sits down.

Can't wait for Opening Night

Good enough to win the title if the starting 5 stays healthy .... this bench is 08/09 - 09/10 like

Black Sheep91 wrote:Yea, if you consider scoring then the bench will be solid.

for example.. lets say the bench scoring goes like this:

blake - 5ppg
meeks 8 ppg
ebanks 5ppg
jamison 10ppg
hill 5ppg

Last year, that would have been good enough for 11th best(tied with 10th) in the league. And our bench is definitely capable of that.
And dont forget the grit and hustle some of the bench players bring.

Great point.

Those are all averages that this team should certainly be capable of achieving. I see Jamison being even better than that, but your totals are somewhere this team should definitely be capable of.

All this bench unit needs to do is score enough to give the starters some rest. That's it, that's all, and good night.

It would be nice to know what it feels like to see a bench come in extend/maintain leads and give the starters extended breaks.

therealdeal wrote:

Black Sheep91 wrote:Yea, if you consider scoring then the bench will be solid.

for example.. lets say the bench scoring goes like this:

blake - 5ppg
meeks 8 ppg
ebanks 5ppg
jamison 10ppg
hill 5ppg

Last year, that would have been good enough for 11th best(tied with 10th) in the league. And our bench is definitely capable of that.
And dont forget the grit and hustle some of the bench players bring.

Great point.

Those are all averages that this team should certainly be capable of achieving. I see Jamison being even better than that, but your totals are somewhere this team should definitely be capable of.

All this bench unit needs to do is score enough to give the starters some rest. That's it, that's all, and good night.

Not to mention, some of these guys will be running with the likes of Nash now. Hill and Jamison could be roll men or open targets on pick and rolls, fast break opportunities for Ebanks and Meeks.

Hell, a team of Nash, Meeks, Ebanks, Jamison, Gasol is better than the starting lineup they had in Phoenix.

Our Bench is Very Good!

Is Chris Duhon a drunk?

This is a "put up or shut" up year for Ebanks..... I expect a lot.

I think the bench will be pretty great next season if:

1) Jaminson and Meeks will cover the offensive duties for the bench.
2) Hill is the rebounder energy guy he was for us last season.
3) Blake plays PG ONLY like he supposed to as he's actually not that bad of a backup PG; and isnt afraid to shoot the wide open 3.
4)Ebanks does whats expected of him. Defend, catch&shoot the midrange, cut to the basket, finish.

If these 4 things happen than the bench will do what it needs to for this team.

its a good thing to know that Meeks and Jaminson can go off on any given night, Hill is capable of putting up a double double as a backup C, Blake can still shoot the 3 pretty well (playoffs: 41.9%), and Ebanks can do a good job defending Durant.

Im happy with the bench...now we just gotta hope everything meshing together well for the starters and the bench mob.

Can Earl Clark play some small forward? Yell™

ben_ready wrote:Can Earl Clark play some small forward? Yell™

Probably not. SF rotation will be Metta/Ebanks/Jamison/Kobe

Whisper™

Like others, I'd like to see Nash/Meeks/Kobe/Jamison/Dwight as a quick lineup, with 3 shooters and Kobe.

watching okc game 3 on nbatv and hill is gunna be huge for our bench. the activity he puts on rebounding is awesome! also he's been playing great d this game...even on durant when him and metta had to switch; great foot speed and length to block or alter shots.

also Steve Blake actuall played pretty good bothersome defense on harden. I think only having to play of will be huge for him as he does alright with just distributing the ball and playing that annoying scrappy d

432J wrote:i'd say the bench is decent at best

but definitely a major upgrade over that atrocity they called a bench last year, god that was terrible

Decent at BEST? At BEST they're probably a top 10 bench in the league. At WORST they're a top 20 bench in the league.

How many other benches boast a guy like Meeks AND a guy like Jamison? And of those benches, how many boast a young guy like Hill? Hm...

Our bench is OK. Not great but OK. If we sign with Barbosa and Barnes this will be a great bench.

Steve Blake = Clutch shooter
Jodie Meeks = Underrated defender and pure shooter
Ebanks = great on the d but bad on the o
Jamison = Good scorer
Hill = Good defender and great rebounder. He can bring some energy.