re: Lineup for 2016

We will never get what he is worth. Based on the last draft, it'd be at least a high 1st maybe more. Its amazing, we are talking a 27 year old career 17/5/5 wing that shoots 45%. Parsons is the same age and is a 14/5/3 guy who shoots 47%. They are both coming off knee injuries (Parsons is more serious). Yet Parsons gets a max deal, but we are going to stretch or cut Evans?

You can't just compare players by looking at simple stats.

Evans is talented, no one is questioning that, but does he fit in New Orleans? I believe the answer is no. If we were running Monty Williams's ISO PnR offense, then yes Tyreke is a great fit. However we are running an offense that is predicated on quick passes and player movement. Reke is a ball stopper. Always has been, always will be.

And if you're looking for evidence go back to his comments regarding Gentry saying he is trying to change the way he plays and he's not going to - does that sound like someone willing to buy in?

quote:

---

I don't know why you are trying to personalize this or why you can't simply use a web search like anybody else. Harden never started for the Thunder, ever. He was a young player that grew into a star. Your examples suck and don't fit your narrative. Two examples out of 30 teams in over a decade of basketball is not a compelling argument.

I've already said he should be the starting SF. He has done it before the past 3 seasons. He is a better player than any other wing we have and has the necessary skills. You say he is unwilling. I have seen no evidence to support that.

Lots of teams have these issues. Its the good ones that make it work. Evans has never played in this system and was hurt last year. To say that he can't adjust or grow or find a role is just premature and short sighted for this team. Letting talent go is just unwise at this point.

---

Because you are getting annoying.

You beg this question and silly me thought you were actually genuine in wanting an answer but in reality you just want to find some roundabout way to argue against benching Evans if he struggles when you are too lazy to make a substantive and solid case for starting him no matter what:

quote:

---

So even if he is 3rd, why would you bench him and start 3 lesser players ahead of him? That just doesn't happen in the league

---

You get an answer and instead of taking it and respecting it and then getting back on topic you then reiterate to another poster:

quote:

---

Nobody ever won in the league cause they have the best bench.

---

To which you are given multiple examples of strong benches putting teams over the edge to a championship.

Then you respond by moving the goal posts to some other arbitrary point you haven't qualified:

quote:

---

Please let me know which of these took one of their top 3 players under 30 and put them on the bench.

---

To which you are given solid examples of the general strategy working but because your goal is to find some ridiculous arbitrary point to not have to deal with actually arguing for Evans in the starting lineup no matter what, you want to fall back on the semantics you set up after moving the goal posts as if that somehow proves something.

You aren't arguing in good faith and that shite gets old fast. That is why my frustration level is rising.

quote:

---

His perfect role would be to abuse other teams bench players, but some people don't see it that way.

---

And I'm not sure Evans can be sold to see it that way either which is another one of the problems IMO.

But I agree. Starting Jrue, Qpon, Solo, AD, Asik should be a really good defensive lineup that can switch out the arse and still score decently.

quote:

---

I'm answering people that direct questions to me. There are more people in this thread than you and I. I haven't side tracked anything. I have actually spurred discusion and defended my points rationally. You just seem uncomfortable with someone not agreeing with you. Buts that your issue, not mine.

---

Where are these great points you have been making? Begging the question, making appeals to the past and moving goalposts is not offering up solid discussion points. You won't even entertain the notion that Evans may not serve the team best by starting. So the discussion is dead before it started because you are clearly entrenched into a position you have no interest in being swayed from.

People explain to you the fit issues in detail and why the move may make sense and you respond with the above tripe. Thats not furthering a discussion, thats retarding the quality of the conversation to a grade school level.

Either you are aware of what you are doing and playing dumb or you truly aren't aware and just are dumb. Either way I'm done discussing with you.

PG Jrue Holiday
SG Buddy Hield
SF Solomon Hill
PF Anthony Davis
C Omer Asik

This will clearly be our starting 5 imo. Evans will be at SG or our 6th man with Moore starting at SG, either way I'm not overly optimistic going into 2016 but it's going to be a rough year.

quote:

---

Manu was 29 and posted career numbers off the bench for a 5 year stretch, those 5 years he had career numbers in basic stats and advanced stats while playing a grand total of 1 more MPG than the 1-2 years he started the years prior (27-28 years old). the difference between him at 27-28 and 29 is negligible, a good coach found a better way for his team to use their 3rd best player who could generate offense AND get others involved.

---

I have had this debate on here over and over. Manu is a special, unique player. To project his situation or role to other players is a pipe dream. He is a hall of famer with multiple championships. A pure SG, great creator with boundless energy. He is also extremely injury prone and has bad feet and ankles. They almost cost him his career back then. That is why he went to the bench. But they couldn't keep him off the court, because he is that good. After awhile, they backed off and he was a starter again (see 10-11 when he started 79 games that season or the 10 or 11 playoffs where he started every game). Then he had injury problems again.

quote:

---

Harden was a high usage SG who could create his own shot, get others involved, and give the bench a spark offensively over thabo sefolosha who was like you said a defensive demon who could not give the team any offense. You would rather then have sefolosha and nobody who can run the offense coming off the bench?

---

Let me just make sure I'm getting this right. Are you saying that Harden should have been left coming off the bench? He is the best SG in the league or pretty close to it. I don't know anybody that thinks he should be a bench player. It worked for that short time, cause he was still really young and was just busting out. But there wasn't a chance he wasn't going to start somewhere that next season.

quote:

---

We have a player who does not get others involved too much, but can create his own shot and generate an adequate offense. You want to start him with two other players who demand the ball offensively as well while leaving the bench empty.

---

It's not my decision and I'm kind of surprised to see the reaction I have gotten. I understand your point and in theory, I think you are right. It would probably benefit everybody involved if he had that type of a diminished role. I'm just being realistic and don't think that will happen. History just doesn't back that up.

If we are just saying who we think should start, then my answer would be totally different. But that wasn't what the OP asked..

quote:

---

I have had this debate on here over and over. Manu is a special, unique player. To project his situation or role to other players is a pipe dream. He is a hall of famer with multiple championships. A pure SG, great creator with boundless energy. He is also extremely injury prone and has bad feet and ankles. They almost cost him his career back then. That is why he went to the bench. But they couldn't keep him off the court, because he is that good. After awhile, they backed off and he was a starter again (see 10-11 when he started 79 games that season or the 10 or 11 playoffs where he started every game). Then he had injury problems again.

---

So then why didn't they move him back into the starting lineup from 2006/2007-2009/2010 even though he played 74+ games in 3 of those 4 seasons? Oh that's right, they needed someone who could come off the bench and give their reserves a spark since the years prior they had some of the most putrid benches in their history.

quote:

---

Let me just make sure I'm getting this right. Are you saying that Harden should have been left coming off the bench? He is the best SG in the league or pretty close to it. I don't know anybody that thinks he should be a bench player. It worked for that short time, cause he was still really young and was just busting out. But there wasn't a chance he wasn't going to start somewhere that next season.

---

Harden is a damn good player, but where he was at in his career he was still a better offensive player and overall player than Thabo Sefolosha. Even rookie year Harden was better offensive player than Thabo Sefolosha in his whole career. Even when Harden averaged 17/4/4 while shooting 49/39/85 on only 10 attempts a game in his final year with OKC he came off the bench. Why? Because the starting unit had TWO dominant offensive oriented players who combined for 39 shots a game and 3 other starting guys who were known for defense (Sefolosha, Perkins, and Ibaka). All of this, outside of Harden their best bench player was Daequan Cook and a rookie Reggie Jackson..you start Harden then that bench becomes completely shite.

Look at it this way as well, 2014-2015 OKC had Andre Roberson start over Reggie Jackson and Dion Waiters. Andre Roberson is known for what? Oh yeah, defense. Dion Waiters and Reggie Jackson are known for what? Oh yeah, offense.

quote:

---

It's not my decision and I'm kind of surprised to see the reaction I have gotten. I understand your point and in theory, I think you are right. It would probably benefit everybody involved if he had that type of a diminished role. I'm just being realistic and don't think that will happen. History just doesn't back that up.

If we are just saying who we think should start, then my answer would be totally different. But that wasn't what the OP asked..

---

History doesn't back it up for the mass, but good-great teams have it or have guys buying in and willing to do it. That is why he needs to either come off the bench and play that spark role or we need to ship him off for a player who can or is willing to do it. Another good example is Lin last year in Charlotte and Jamal Crawford in LAC. They're both better offensive players than the starting SGs on their team, but the bench outside of them are pretty pathetic and that is where they're needed.

He needs to fit that role because him starting opposed to Jrue is a detriment to getting AD involved and more efficient shots from the other 4 players on the court. Him starting and Jrue starting is a detriment to our team as well because we have nobody on the bench who can generate their own shot or set anyone up. To be fair, I guess Buddy or Frazier could, but this is going to be trial and error for Gentry if he starts Evans and Holiday.