it's a small miracle that they can win games.

BRIGGS wrote:Cannot win consistently with Duhon Jefferies and a strange--underutilized bench effort. If Duhon was consistently giving you 12-14 points and shooting 43%--you could get away with Jefferies but it's tough to carry a guy who receives major minute who doesn't score WITH another guy who doesnt do it consistently. I think that we should've committed to play both Hill/Douglas and look at other areas to upgrade the PG position. I don't think Nate --as much as I think he has the talent--I don't think it's in our best long term interest to play him and bender over these guys. Good teams have given their rookies chance with consistent playing time. We are a couple of last second--somewhat lucky wins away from being 11 games under instead of 7--we are still very small against many teams and lack speed from the perimeter. Id like us to play 9--I mean D Lee went 48 last night--does anyone REALLY see us as a team who needs to play a guy 48 minutes? I think we wouldve been better off losing a couple of those tight games to put more urgency on some various change that is needed to be consistent. When you are down 30 at home to Toronto---lets be real--we need a bit of a change up/
I think we have a good core with Lee Gallinari and Chandler--but it's far from enough.

I agree with you. I think Duhon needs the Hughes treatment.

I would run a lineup of

Douglas
Chandler
Gallo
Harrington
Lee

Hughes
Landry
Hill

I think the defensive incapabilities of Duhon and Nate are destroying the team. I like Harrington off the Bench, but I wouldn't let Hughes and Harrington be on the floor at the same time. Hughes and Hill could replace Douglas and Harrington in the lineup.

That said, I am not so far down on Jeffries, I just am not seeing what I want to see from him lately. He might not be out of the lineup entirely but I'd like to see what the other guys can do... I think Landry can replicate Jeffries pretty well without the 6'11 part.

MDA played Hill tonight I'm hoping he's now in the rotation.

Let it go fellas let it go. We're just riding out the leftover messes that Layden and then Isiah created. That's all this is.

To think about changing or adding to this present roster with the hopes of making the playoffs is not a healthy thought.

We're in the final stages of tearing down the mess.

In the summer we finally begin to build our new team with our newfound assets.

Stay the course....remember the plan. Forget about salvaging this season.

Which, BTW, is something that you simply can't do given what is available out there. You'd be pulling an Isiah. You'll mortgage having LeBron for a chance to end up 2 games out of 8th on April 14th.

No. Just say no.

BRIGGS wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Cannot win consistently with Duhon Jefferies and a strange--underutilized bench effort. If Duhon was consistently giving you 12-14 points and shooting 43%--you could get away with Jefferies but it's tough to carry a guy who receives major minute who doesn't score WITH another guy who doesnt do it consistently. I think that we should've committed to play both Hill/Douglas and look at other areas to upgrade the PG position. I don't think Nate --as much as I think he has the talent--I don't think it's in our best long term interest to play him and bender over these guys. Good teams have given their rookies chance with consistent playing time. We are a couple of last second--somewhat lucky wins away from being 11 games under instead of 7--we are still very small against many teams and lack speed from the perimeter. Id like us to play 9--I mean D Lee went 48 last night--does anyone REALLY see us as a team who needs to play a guy 48 minutes? I think we wouldve been better off losing a couple of those tight games to put more urgency on some various change that is needed to be consistent. When you are down 30 at home to Toronto---lets be real--we need a bit of a change up/
I think we have a good core with Lee Gallinari and Chandler--but it's far from enough.

I agree with you. I think Duhon needs the Hughes treatment.

I would run a lineup of

Douglas
Chandler
Gallo
Harrington
Lee

Hughes
Landry
Hill

I think the defensive incapabilities of Duhon and Nate are destroying the team. I like Harrington off the Bench, but I wouldn't let Hughes and Harrington be on the floor at the same time. Hughes and Hill could replace Douglas and Harrington in the lineup.

That said, I am not so far down on Jeffries, I just am not seeing what I want to see from him lately. He might not be out of the lineup entirely but I'd like to see what the other guys can do... I think Landry can replicate Jeffries pretty well without the 6'11 part.

I dont see Douglas as a 1. I think we may have to look elsewhere for help there--I do think that he should be givena chance to play Nate's position as an energizer back up. Nate looks like he is hurt--he is all bandaged up below his knees and missed a lay up he always makes last night. I think we should re-explore the possibilities of sending Nate out. I am open to some moves here IF we truly believe in wininng this season. I think it can be done without risking cap space.

Yeah, my thoughts on Douglas may be more aspirational, but I think this offense needs a PG that can (1) shoot-- to force the opposing guard to stay close to him, (2) run the PnR... its Lee's bread and butter, (3) finish at the hoop if the defense swarms Lee off the PnR, and (4) play man to man defense on the ball. Douglas can get the ball up the floor and beyond either pass it to Lee, Gallo or Chandler. After getting the ball up the court, he is another player in the motion offense.

I agree with concept of Jeffries being in the lineup to make up for Duhon's defensive deficiencies. I think of Hughes as a better replacement for Nate's instant offensive, they are all equally streaky.

End of the day is that Duhon has to go. Can't win it all with Dudu.

Cosmic wrote:Have you guys forgotten that our future isn't about this present roster?

Let it go fellas let it go. We're just riding out the leftover messes that Layden and then Isiah created. That's all this is.

To think about changing or adding to this present roster with the hopes of making the playoffs is not a healthy thought.

We're in the final stages of tearing down the mess.

In the summer we finally begin to build our new team with our newfound assets.

Stay the course....remember the plan. Forget about salvaging this season.

Which, BTW, is something that you simply can't do given what is available out there. You'd be pulling an Isiah. You'll mortgage having LeBron for a chance to end up 2 games out of 8th on April 14th.

No. Just say no.

Totally agree. I dont see us imporving from within. You can shuffle the deck all you want but we are what we are, rebuiling and trying to clear most of these guys off the roster that we are complaining about.

But I will say this, MDA is not looking at this as a throw away season nor should he. Coaches coach to win regardless of the roster, thats why I never kill him too much for relying on vets as opposed to just sticking in rooks just for them to gain experience while the team (in the coaches eyes) are in the middle of a playoff run. Now, in Feb, and we are out of the mix and the rooks aren't getting significant minutes, then is time to really get on MDA.....

Uptown wrote:

VDesai wrote:Its why I've never been sold of the value of Jefferies. He's bascially a negative player on offense.

That being said the team is really tied to the PG play. If they can't get good PG player they will be lost for stretches of the game offensively when the deep jumpers aren't falling. Duhon is just a limited guy.

Keep in mind, Jeffries was a vital part in our resurgence during the month of december. With that being said, he shouldn't be any more than a 20 min a night player more or less depending on matchups and the pace of the game.

Three thoughts on Jefferies.

Maybe he is tired, and not able to impact the game

Or, perhaps we're just playing better teams, and he isn't good enough to thwart better players

Or, perhaps teams have figured D'Antoni's gimmick out.