PDA

View Full Version : Should Stephen Jackson Start?



Los Angeles
03-14-2005, 02:09 PM
I don't think there's a single one of us that honestly believes that James Jones should start over Stephen Jackson at the three. But hey, I could be wrong for the 1 millionth time (a number that seems low to me).

SO - if you think this is the right starting lineup considering our current available cast, this is the place for you to tell the rest of us why. OR if you think there is a better rotation available to our coaching staff, I would love to hear what it is.

Jax just had an off game, we can all admit that, but I wonder if there is a ball movement or chemistry thing going on that has the coaches keeping Jax and Reggie off the court at the same time. Or is this just an effort to spread the scoring around between the first and second units? Does Jackson starting limit the number of touches Reggie would get?

Sound off if you wanna -

Deadshot
03-14-2005, 02:14 PM
There is no doubt that Jackson is a better player, but I like the idea of him coming off the bench - he can really energize the second unit.

Bball
03-14-2005, 02:15 PM
I've always wondered if the reason the Pacers avoided having an 'heir apparent' to Reggie on the team was because they didn't want a 'quaterback controversey'. But with Reggie's imminent retirement they pretty much had to address this. Also, they had to address the weak guard play against the Pistons...

Now that we have an 'heir apparent' I don't know if they'd worry about that type of stuff or not. Surely at this point I'd hope it would be about giving us our best chance to win. ...but then Reggie does have to get his legacy starts so when you have to hammer square pegs into round holes sometimes things don't exactly make sense from the outside looking in.

Besides... There is always somebody telling us it doesn't matter who starts....

-Bball

able
03-14-2005, 02:18 PM
Jasx is better then JJ without a doubt, that said.........
Jax was meant to be in the second squad, perhaps indeed there's something about "room" for Reg and Jax, perhaps it is because it works with JJ?
Perhaps it is to make a set rotation ready for what is expected?

I really have no idea, but I do accept the idea of Jax coming of the bench being better then him starting.

In all honesty: there are so many "weird" things going on that I have given up and just eagerly await news, on all kinds of things, or as it was once said:

"There something brewing over yonder"

Suaveness
03-14-2005, 02:21 PM
With Jackson coming off of the bench, we can get scoring from the bench.

Los Angeles
03-14-2005, 02:30 PM
With Jackson coming off of the bench, we can get scoring from the bench.
Why couldn't we get scoring from JJ and Freddie? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really want to know what the deal is there. Because the season has been so fouled up, one positive thing has come out of this: we've had the opportunity to see how every player on our team performs in nearly every situation. I can't think of the last time any team's fans have had that opportunity.

Both JJ and Freddie have played very well, and done so off the bench. What is keeping these young guns from scoring well off the bench from the second unit lately? Why does swapping Jackson and JJ "fix" that?

Slick Pinkham
03-14-2005, 02:36 PM
Nothing wrong with having one of your best players be 6th man, if he still plays over 30 min/g.

Recall that Kevin McHale won back-to-back 6th man awards in the 80's before Cedric Maxwell was traded. McHale was better than Maxwell, but McHale gave the bench unit a dominant force.

Havlicek was a 6th man too for part of his career.

I think Red Auerbach basically invented the idea of a top 3 player coming off the bench, The hard thing is probably selling that role to the player. Al Harrington was all hung up on not starting, for example.

dryley
03-14-2005, 03:04 PM
I didn't see last nights game, listened to the second half on the radio. Unless I missed something, every time S-Jax got the ball he shot (and missed!) I don't remember him passing the ball once. Oh wait, he did give it to the Cavs a few times!
Not that I'm condemning him, I'm glad we have him. But you gotta pass the ball once in a while, if for no other reason than to keep the other guy guessing.
While on the subject of S-Jax, I don't think I've ever seen a streakier shooter! He is either in "the zone" or he's in "the Twilight Zone"... and he may visit both several times during a game!

Kegboy
03-14-2005, 03:34 PM
I'm surprised that Peck hasn't jumped in with the good ol' "Artest as 6th man" arguement. :-p

That said, I know I'm a JJ hater, but I don't care for this. Can't say Stephen did either, considering he was 3-16 last night.

Hicks
03-14-2005, 03:37 PM
Jack has a bad night and some like to assume he did it on purpose. I don't at all. Carlisle sure went out of his way to cover up a misfit if you're right.



ďI liked the way that Jack was playing, even though he was missing some shots. He was aggressive, and I talked to him about coming off the bench because I thought it was something that could make us a stronger team. He not only was agreeable, but he relished the opportunity to help the team in any way possible. Thatís big for our team. But, the thing we canít have right now, is for anybody, not one guy, to not be playing at his full capacity. Our margins for error are just too small, we just cannot allow that to happen.Ē


Of course, as I say that, his last statement contradicts himself if you assume he's referring to Jackson then too.

Bah.

Kegboy
03-14-2005, 03:41 PM
Jack has a bad night and some like to assume he did it on purpose. I don't at all. Carlisle sure went out of his way to cover up a misfit if you're right.



Of course, as I say that, his last statement contradicts himself if you assume he's referring to Jackson then too.

Bah.

I'm not saying his bad shooting was intentional, but such a move can **** with a guy's confidence. Not a good player-relations move, IMO.

Suaveness
03-14-2005, 04:25 PM
Why couldn't we get scoring from JJ and Freddie? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really want to know what the deal is there. Because the season has been so fouled up, one positive thing has come out of this: we've had the opportunity to see how every player on our team performs in nearly every situation. I can't think of the last time any team's fans have had that opportunity.

Both JJ and Freddie have played very well, and done so off the bench. What is keeping these young guns from scoring well off the bench from the second unit lately? Why does swapping Jackson and JJ "fix" that?

Because those are 2 people who don't shoot the ball as much as they should, especially Freddie. Bench players cannot be passive all the time

PaceBalls
03-14-2005, 04:38 PM
I didn't understand Ricks reasoning, but SJax is our best player right now. Only reasoning I can see is They want him on the floor when Reggie isnt. But I think he should be on the floor the whole game if possible. Alongside Reggie.

A-Train
03-14-2005, 05:36 PM
I think, with this season in such turmoil, Carlisle was content to stick to the formula that worked vs Golden State the game before when Jackson came off the bench and we won easily.

I think Carlisle will try anything about now to get a W.

_PD_
03-14-2005, 05:58 PM
He might be trying to spread our offensive threats? If they're not on the floor at the same time, they don't have to share the ball. That said, it also means guys like AJ become the second threat and he did have a nice game the other night. And I think RC will fish for any combo that might work right now, without regard to who's a starter and who ain't. Also, didn't DD and Pollard start? THere's a combination suited for Cleveland. Might change for the next game. Maybe Philly should try it and have CWeb come off the bench.

beast23
03-14-2005, 05:59 PM
I didn't understand Ricks reasoning, but SJax is our best player right now. Only reasoning I can see is They want him on the floor when Reggie isnt. But I think he should be on the floor the whole game if possible. Alongside Reggie.I think you are pretty close.

Carlisle cannot afford to have a minute of the game where both SJax and Reggie are on the bench. Therefore, his plan is to play them in opposite units, with some overlap with both on the floor together.

Carlisle's comments seem to say that he believes that the TEAM is most productive when SJax and Reggie are utilized in this manner.

So one can argue about whether Carlisle's conclusion (the team being more productive) is right or wrong, but I think that his reason is very clear.

PaceBalls
03-14-2005, 06:31 PM
I'm saying besides the worries of foul trouble, theres no reason Sjax shouldn't be out there 48mins. So start him at SF with Reggie at SG and let him play the whole game, or pertineer most of it. As in how they used to play Reggie in his prime...

Will Galen
03-14-2005, 07:07 PM
. . . but then Reggie does have to get his legacy starts

Legacy starts? Haw haw haw haw haw!

You're not the only one repeating that Bball, but I really thought Reggie had laid that to rest.

I'm just gonna say I strongly disagree and drop it there. You're intitled to your wrong opinion. (Big Grin)

Los Angeles
03-14-2005, 07:18 PM
I'm saying besides the worries of foul trouble, theres no reason Sjax shouldn't be out there 48mins. So start him at SF with Reggie at SG and let him play the whole game, or pertineer most of it. As in how they used to play Reggie in his prime...
Amen to that - we have less than 20 games to go - and a shot at the playoffs. This is no time to spread the minutes around so that everyone is rested. A year in Atlanta with no hopes of even being in the playoffs should have Jackson chomping at the bit to play a maximum number of minutes. You can start Jackson and still rotate in a way that keeps either Reggie or Jackson in throughout the entire 48 minutes.