Chillbongo wrote:If that's the rationale for keeping someone in the game, why doesn't that argument stand for Morris?
Because he's easily the worst player on our roster. Morris makes Jodie look like a legitimate starter in the NBA.
Chillbongo wrote:It's like we're judging people by different metrics. Jamison is one thing because he's older and not a defender. But especially for Clark, it's like If he isn't putting up 10/10 then GTFO. Typica MDA MO - if you play like s*** for 10 minutes, you're riding pine.
I'm not judging them for any other metric than when you're in the game, you need a positive impact. That's my only metric. If Clark is going to be in the game he has to do more than get one rebound. I mean... was he setting good screens even? Was he moving the ball? Was he running? I can tell you honestly that I have NO IDEA and that means he probably wasn't because you and I would notice those things. I'm not saying he needs to have 10/10, I'm saying he CAN'T have 0/1/0/0/0 with 0 FG attempts.
Chillbongo wrote:Maybe he had one bad game, but unless he's hurt or visibly DGAF like Kwame, he could play more minutes. Our strategy for the game kind of kept him away from the ball. He's not supposed to crowd the paint (cutting) and needed to be in position to get back on D quick (crashing boards). He didn't take a shot - was he kicked out to? The game plan was different Sunday. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be in -- coach needs to learn how to make use of his players strengths.
Strategy or not, when he's at his best he's attacking the boards and defending with a purpose. He's helping on defense, he's running the floor, he's spacing effectively. He didn't do any of those things and because of that he SHOULDN'T be in. I might not sit him as long as D'Antoni, but I'd certainly sit yell at him on the sidelines. He's got too much talent to NOT DO ANYTHING on the floor while he's out there. There's no defending the kind of game he had. He's GOT to do better.
Chillbongo wrote:Meeks has never put up 10/10 let alone 10 points consistently. 1/5 games does he rack 10+, on top of being a niche player, ineffective on defense and sometimes turnover prone. But because he gives energy that provides nothing to us winning games, let's keep him in the game?
If my choice is between someone who will provide energy with nothing or a person who will provide nothing with nothing, then yes.
Chillbongo wrote:Well with our 7 man rotation we can't play them any less if we want to win. With Kobe/Hill out, Nash hurt and no other guards off the bench, we need to run those guys 40 minutes in the playoffs. They're healthy right now and as you said, there's no reason to save guys at this point.
But you disagreed!
And we ran a 9 man rotation last game. We played Nash/Blake/Peace/Gasol/Howard/Morris/Meeks/Jamison/Clark. I guarantee you if Jamison shoots/makes more shots he plays more minutes. I guarantee you that if Clark comes out and gets a couple boards and blocks a shot he'll play more minutes too. We just need guys to step up and do things.
I'm not even defending Meeks. I said after the game, the kid needs to make buckets. But if the option is a kid who works his butt off every play but can't hit a shot or a guy who isn't working hard enough AND can't/won't hit a shot... I'll pick the first one every time.