Would You Even Use This Line-up?

[NuffSaid]

I thought about this the other day and was wondering if this lineup would ever work:

C - Hibbert
PF - Granger
SF - DJones
PG - Dunleavy
SG - BRush

I know...very uncharacteristing, right? But then when you think about it could work.

You have speed, athleticism and shooters abound on the floor. Dunleavy has very good ball control and he did play PG...in high school, but he has handled the rock from time to time bringing the ball across half-court on the inbounds pass.

I think such a lineup would be very affective against zone defenses. Man-D might be a different story. But one thing is very clear with this lineup: You won't have teams collapsing on just Danny, that's for sure.

[pwee31]

I like Dunleavy's ball handling, passing and play making for a 2/3, but not well enough to be the "PG" on the floor

[BillS]

I was going to agree with pwee31, but then I thought about how much I don't particularly care for TJ's ball handling skills or decisions.

I'd have to say I'm intrigued by this and wouldn't mind seeing it tested in action.

With Dun on the floor would you figure Danny can do some concentrating on D so you could go big by shifting him to 3 and bringing Solo off the bench at 4 first for Dahntay?

[NuffSaid]

Exactly! With that rotation, you move players back to their "natural" positions except for Dunleavy but keep athletic players and shooters on the floor w/o losing much on defense.

It could work for short spurts.

[pwee31]

Originally Posted by NuffSaid

Exactly! With that rotation, you move players back to their "natural" positions except for Dunleavy but keep athletic players and shooters on the floor w/o losing much on defense.

It could work for short spurts.

In a half court game... sure, but you can say that about Sarunas.

Dun Dun is my favorite player, but i don't want to see him have to bring the ball up with full court pressure. It has been awhile since we've seen a healthy Dun Dun, but I still recall his love for going behind his back in traffic at times

[CableKC]

I could possibly use that lineup with Dunelavy as the PG in NBA2k10....but not in real life.

[Brad8888]

This is an interesting concept that could work in certain circumstances. Truthfully, in the event of needing a comeback from down 10 or more in the fourth quarter, it would be interesting to see this in action against teams without an imposing interior presence that might overwhelm Roy and an out of position Danny (or Murphy instead of Roy if we are trying to maximize the potential for threes). With proper spacing, it wouldn't even be horribly vulnerable to dribble penetration from quick point guards because the overall team defensive IQ of Dun, BRush, and DJones should be able to protect against it to an extent.

Do I think we will see it? Not really.

[NuffSaid]

Let's look at some aspects as to how this lineup could be affective.

Dribble penetration. You have decent ball handlers coming at you from 4 positions - PG, SG, SF and PF. No team can stop all four of them.

FG Shooting. I don't think we need to address this issue. We all know Granger and Dunleavy are effecient shooters. DJones is developing as a decent midrange jump shot and if BRush could ever get back on track we know he can drain the 3-ball but it's his willingness to step inside the arch and knock down a few midrange jumpers himself.

Perimeter shooting. Talk about having the ability to shoot lights out from all over the place! Granger, Dunleavy, BRush. And if DJones could ever get into the mix the four of them would be a killer quartet!!!

Now, here are the downsides as I see them:

On-the-ball defense. DJones, Granger and BRush are decent 1-on-1 defenders. I'd like to think Dunleavy has improved in this area, but even I'd concede that faster PGs would likely blow right by him. Still, with Danny and Hibbert there to bring help defense and hold down the paint, I really don't see this as a great liability.

Ball Control in the half-court (moreso from pressure defense, i.e., half-court traps). Yeah, this could be the one true achillie's heel, but if it truly became a problem just rotate BRush out, move Dunleavy to SG and bring in Watson or TJ Ford and that problem is solved. (But you then have to deal with instructing Ford to play within the offense [or in other words, "Pass the freakin' ball, man!"])

Overall, I see more upside to this than down. Still, this all hinges on getting Dunleavy back on the floor and JOB's willingness to take such a risk. But I figure if he's been willing to go small using Granger, Dahntey, Watson, BRush and Hibbert before, swapping Watson for Dunleavy shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[Eindar]

I think if you could get it into the half court you'd be ok, and I think you'd be ok in transition as well because there's less dribbling in traffic, but I think any PG who's worth anything on defense would pick Mike's pocket repeatedly bringing it up the floor. YOu'd have to have Dantay bring it up, maybe even Rush or Granger, and I'm not sure I'd trust them that much, either.

It would work well in certain scenarios (big PG on the floor who doesn't pressure the ball), but otherwise, I'd pass.

[Trophy]

Probably not. I mean a 6-9 player being the PG? I don't know. We need him at SG/SF.

[Tom White]

Originally Posted by Trophy

Probably not. I mean a 6-9 player being the PG? I don't know. We need him at SG/SF.

Only if he goes by the name of Magic.

[BlueNGold]

I would try it, because I like those players...but you could just sub Watson for Rush and have a lot better control of the ball. I really like Rush, but Watson is probably better at the moment.

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by Tom White

Only if he goes by the name of Magic.

Magic Mike? I like it.

[Anthem]

I actually remember Dun getting time at PG against us while he played at Golden State. He terrorized us.

Does anyone else remember that?

[pianoman]

I was about to mention that he played pg in Golden State at times, and was effective

[mellifluous]

Originally Posted by NuffSaid

I thought about this the other day and was wondering if this lineup would ever work:

C - Hibbert
PF - Granger
SF - DJones
PG - Dunleavy
SG - BRush

Originally Posted by pwee31

Dun Dun is my favorite player, but i don't want to see him have to bring the ball up with full court pressure.

The first thign this brings to mind is Tbird's definition of player positions: the idea that you label a player by which position they can defend, not by what they can do offensively.

In this case that means that your actual lineup looks like this:

PG - D. Jones
SG - B. Rush
SF - Dunleavy
PF - Granger
C - Hibbert

Defensively I see absolutely no problem with that. Jones defended Chris Paul in the playoffs last season and did an excellent job at it.

Pwee does have a excellent point about pressure. You can't use that lineup against a team that's going to pressure you at all. You've got 4 average to above average ballhandlers and Hibbert on the floor. You don't have a one man press breaker like Ford or Watson. Though an interesting idea would be to use Roy in the back court after made baskets and try to advance the ball past half court without dribbling.

One interesting thing about that lineup is that it would very likely have one of the highest average IQ's of any lineup used in the NBA this season.

[MillerTime]

the opposing team would trap us all the time. We have no real ball handlers...that is not going to work

[NashvilleKat]

Originally Posted by NuffSaid

Let's look at some aspects as to how this lineup could be affective.

Dribble penetration. You have decent ball handlers coming at you from 4 positions - PG, SG, SF and PF. No team can stop all four of them.

FG Shooting. I don't think we need to address this issue. We all know Granger and Dunleavy are effecient shooters. DJones is developing as a decent midrange jump shot and if BRush could ever get back on track we know he can drain the 3-ball but it's his willingness to step inside the arch and knock down a few midrange jumpers himself.

Perimeter shooting. Talk about having the ability to shoot lights out from all over the place! Granger, Dunleavy, BRush. And if DJones could ever get into the mix the four of them would be a killer quartet!

Now, here are the downsides as I see them:

On-the-ball defense. DJones, Granger and BRush are decent 1-on-1 defenders. I'd like to think Dunleavy has improved in this area, but even I'd concede that faster PGs would likely blow right by him. Still, with Danny and Hibbert there to bring help defense and hold down the paint, I really don't see this as a great liability.

Ball Control in the half-court (moreso from pressure defense, i.e., half-court traps). Yeah, this could be the one true achillie's heel, but if it truly became a problem just rotate BRush out, move Dunleavy to SG and bring in Watson or TJ Ford and that problem is solved. (But you then have to deal with instructing Ford to play within the offense [or in other words, "Pass the freakin' ball, man!"])

Overall, I see more upside to this than down. Still, this all hinges on getting Dunleavy back on the floor and JOB's willingness to take such a risk. But I figure if he's been willing to go small using Granger, Dahntey, Watson, BRush and Hibbert before, swapping Watson for Dunleavy shouldn't be too much of a problem.

You'd have the tallest point guard in the NBA...isn't Dun about 6'9

[imawhat]

I would be very interested in seeing that lineup.

Defensively, I think Jones is an elite level PG defender. We've barely used him on PGs this year, but that's his best defensive position. Because of this, you can put Dunleavy on the opponent's weakest wing player and he's not as much of a liability.

With Dunleavy, I believe our starting lineup is 6'6", 6'7", 6'9", 6'10", 7'2". I love size because usually equates to length on the defensive end.

Offensively I think it makes sense. The biggest downside is probably ballhandling, but I'd be willing to give it a shot.

[IndyPacer]

Originally Posted by mellifluous

The first thign this brings to mind is Tbird's definition of player positions: the idea that you label a player by which position they can defend, not by what they can do offensively.

In this case that means that your actual lineup looks like this:

PG - D. Jones
SG - B. Rush
SF - Dunleavy
PF - Granger
C - Hibbert

Defensively I see absolutely no problem with that. Jones defended Chris Paul in the playoffs last season and did an excellent job at it.

Pwee does have a excellent point about pressure. You can't use that lineup against a team that's going to pressure you at all. You've got 4 average to above average ballhandlers and Hibbert on the floor. You don't have a one man press breaker like Ford or Watson. Though an interesting idea would be to use Roy in the back court after made baskets and try to advance the ball past half court without dribbling.

One interesting thing about that lineup is that it would very likely have one of the highest average IQ's of any lineup used in the NBA this season.

I really don't like the idea of Granger guarding PF long-term even if he's capable of doing it. He's going to accumulate too much wear and tear down the road playing against opponents with naturally larger, stronger frames.

[Major Cold]

That lineup will work against teams that do not pressure the point until the reach the 3point line. If we played the Indiana Pacers of last year I could see it used. We made no adjustments last year when the "PG" had poor handles. If Dun could get a Mark Jackson butt he could simply guard the ball by simply putting his back to the bucket and moving backwards.

[Speed]

I haven't read all of the responses, but I actually do think you could use this lines up in spurts. Defensively D Jones can actually guard an opposing PG, he guarded CP3 last year in the playoffs.

Problem is, you're going big in the back court and small in front court, but can you exploit that advantage. Dunleavy can't post up a smaller guy, although he can shoot over one.

I would be interested to see it.

[DaveP63]

Interesting...But is he quick enough? I have zero reservations about his decision making and other abilities...

[spreedom]

Nellie, is that you??