1. Ebanks was a rookie under Phil. Of course he didn't get PT. How quickly we forget.
who's forgetting? he was given the same opportunities that a 2nd round pick with potential would normally get: a roster spot and garbage minutes. In those minutes he showed some athleticism and defense, but almost no jump shot and terrible offensive instincts.
borri wrote:2. Under Brown, a defensive minded coach, finally saw what Ebanks can do defensively and started him when Kobe was injured with a shin problem....INSTEAD of Blake. And if you recall, Ebanks did just fine. Go look at the box scores.
I did. And I also watched almost every game he played. Last season I championed the bandwagon asking him to play more, but when he got minutes he was inconsistent. What is the difference between Ebanks and Hill? Or Ebanks and Clark? When Hill and Clark get an opportunity they never stop working on the court. Ebanks would take plays off, fall asleep on the floor, and fade away into nothingness. There were games when he'd go 1-6 from the field in 20+ minutes; all while not making an impact on the glass or defensively.
Then there's the issue of getting a DUI during the season. That's absolutely unacceptable, especially if you're trying to make an impression on the team/break the rotation.
I wanted him to be effective as much as anybody, but he's just not.
borri wrote:3. Ebanks even got PT come playoff time. Ebanks showed what he can do defensively against KD on 4/22/2012.
And what has he done since? He got playing time in those playoffs and did almost nothing with it.
borri wrote:4. Finally, answer this question: Is Nash/Meeks/DUhon a better defender than Morris? U have got to be joking if you think the answer is yes.
I gave you my answer: maybe. He's better than Nash in one-on-one situations obviously. But is he a whole lot better than Meeks or Duhon? Not really. Not enough to counter how absolutely horrendous he is offensively. You must have forgotten the silly fouls he'd give up a la Vujacic back in the day. You think Meeks is bad? Morris was worse.
borri wrote:Is thinking the obvious...Morris is a better defender than Nash/Meeks/Duhon...over-romanticising? You can't be serious. You are the LAST person on this board that I would even fathom would dispute this point. I am actually kind of amazed you are debating me on this point.
Simply put, subbing in players doesn't have to be for offensive purposes only.
I think you're romanticising their overall impact. One of those things can be true (Morris can be a better defender than those three) but does that mean he's a better basketball player/more deserving of minutes than Meeks/Duhon/Nash? Does his improved defense justify him playing when it costs us on both ends of the floor?
Here's the thing: with Meeks/Duhon we've got proven outside shooting. Not great, but proven to be adequate. Morris doesn't have that. Meeks/Duhon have shown they can score with other guys and can likely play a team even off the bench. Morris has shown that offensively he creates more turnovers than assists, misses more shots than he makes, and CANNOT make up for it defensively. If you're terrible offensively, then nobody better be able to score on you (see Tony Allen). Morris is no defensive stopper, he's just better than our other guys. He can't stop guys consistently and he consistently gives the ball up.
Substitutions can't be JUST defense, especially if that defense isn't consistent and isn't overwhelming.