Who Dresses? (2014-2015 rotation)

Wizop · Post #1 » by **Wizop** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:13 pm

We now have a full roster of 15 players. I can't see who sits. What do you think?

Point Guards

Wings

Stretch Fours

Power Forwards

Centers

Whittington is injured and you'd think he'd be a D-League candidate but who is number 14? Sloan is a candidate although I like to dress three point guards.

Is Stuckey a point guard? If he is that's bad for Sloan, and it also raises questions about the two.

Is Solo ready to push PG back to two?

Can either Copeland or Rudez defend the three?

Will we play more small ball with West or Scola at the five? I suppose playing Lavoy Allen at five also counts as small ball.

Lots of questions for a team with four starters returning after 56 wins.

Post #2 » by **Jake0890** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:58 pm

Whittington is the obvious man out. He's gotta be on the inactives list every single night. The next guy is probably Rudez. I don't see the need of having 2 stretch fours activated every night, and I think Cope gets the nod over him. I guess if Vogel really wants to shoot more 3s this season, he'll put Sloan on the inactives list instead of Rudez, because I don't see where he gets minutes in our backcourt.

But I'm gonna lose it if Vogel puts Solomon Hill in the D-League and in suits on the bench again this year. At that point, you're giving up on him ever having a career in the NBA. Not playing a single meaningful minute of NBA action in the first 2 years of your career is a death sentence.

Wizop · Post #3 » by **Wizop** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:47 pm

I wouldn't think Bird signed Rudez only to see him inactive. But then maybe he was insurance in case we had to let Scola go to get tax room.

Perhaps it is Lavoy Allen who fails to dress. He's more of a 4 than a 5 and a good long term replacement for West or Scola.

I agree that it shouldn't be Solo. In a perfect world he'd earn 18 to 24 minutes a night in his second year.

EuroPacer · Post #4 » by **EuroPacer** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:59 pm

I would think we will start a Hill/Miles/George/West/Hibbert without too many questions. Stuckey, Watson, Allen/Scola and Rudez or Copeland are the obvious rotation players. I think we will stick to a big five, so Mahinmi will see the floor a lot.

I would think it will be another disappointing season for Solo, Sloan and one of Scola/Allen with Withington. I think it would be Scola who sees less of the floor. Frankly, it is a rather puzzling roster so far and I don't think we are done yet. I can see Bird pulling some sort of rabbit out of the hat with a trade for Scola/Sloan, bringing in another talent rather than stick to them, but who knows... whatever happens, we have a lot of depth in the middle level of the ability spectrum and I actually am growing quietly confident that our bench is going to be more productive whilst negating the negativity of Lance.

Having said all that, I'd readily give up Scola, Copeland and Sloan for Lance at this point.

Post #5 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:22 pm

EuroPacer wrote:
Having said all that, I'd readily give up Scola, Copeland and Sloan for Lance at this point.

Bird would've too. Our offer to Lance was only possible if we dumped those guys after Lance accepted. Otherwise, over the luxury tax.

Post #6 » by **pacers33granger** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:25 pm

We know Whittington will be the first (if we even keep him). I think Sloan will be the second. Stuckey can fill in a few minutes at pg if need be. I'd bet Vogel uses his bench more this year and Stuckey and Watson (and hopefully Hill) see a good amount of minutes. Third will probably be one of Allen, Rudez, or Cope depending on matchup/injuries.

Wizop · Post #7 » by **Wizop** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:37 pm

I'm hoping Copeland or Rudez show an ability to play the 3. I want someone to play 3 well enough to push Paul back to the 2.

but I'm a big believer in Auerbach's old Boston system of starting only 4 or your best 5 and getting better when you bring your first sub into the game at the 6 minute time out. oh, and I agree with your statement that Vogel will use his bench differently. at least that's the plan and I assume it was Bird's end of season critique.

SmashMouthRod · Post #8 » by **SmashMouthRod** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:53 pm

Stuckey will play the one or two only; He doesnt play the 3. Rudez is the 3/4. Im hoping he is very good. Im rooting for the small ball uptempo change of pace lineup off the bench. Although Vogel generally likes to play big. I believe the small ball lineups off the bench would produce some offense; ending the bad bench curse. Also if guys off the bench can produce offense consistently it will alleviate the loss of Stephenson. In training camp this is an opportunity to sample with George Hill off the ball more and different lineups.

Expected Rotation
Hill/Watson
Miles/Stuckey
George/Solo/Rudez
West/ Scola/Copeland/Allen
Hibbert/ Mahinmi/Allen

If I coached this team the rotation I would try..... Im rooting for....

Hill/Watson/ Stuckey (He can fill in minutes at the one or two in foul trouble; to matchup or injury instances.)
Miles/Rudez/ Stuckey (My sample of Rudez at the two is because I believe that him being a ball handler/scorer that he will fit there and his length may annoy opposing guards)
George/Solo/ Rudez
West/ Scola / Copeland
Hibbert/ Allen/ (Mahinmi can be used when needed against bigger opponents)

Wizop · Post #9 » by **Wizop** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:06 pm

SmashMouthRod wrote:Expected Rotation
Hill/Watson
Miles/Stuckey
George/Solo/Rudez
West/ Scola/Copeland/Allen
Hibbert/ Mahinmi/Allen

My hoped for rotation would be

of course, my hopes include a big jump in readiness for Solo.

Dunkin Dutchman · Post #10 » by **Dunkin Dutchman** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:19 pm

I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2. I think a big reason why he made such a leap this season was because he could play the 3 offensively. With the right people around him, CJ Miles can be a 16-5-3 guy. Great Shooter and above average defender. Start him, bring in Watson, slide Hill to the 2. That will give us a little lineup flexibility in the back court at least.

EuroPacer · Post #11 » by **EuroPacer** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:32 pm

Dunkin Dutchman wrote:I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2. I think a big reason why he made such a leap this season was because he could play the 3 offensively. With the right people around him, CJ Miles can be a 16-5-3 guy. Great Shooter and above average defender. Start him, bring in Watson, slide Hill to the 2. That will give us a little lineup flexibility in the back court at least.

RIK!!!!

I agree though, I think we keep George at the three, the Stuckey signing just confirms that. I really don't think we will see a lot of Solo this year either.

SmashMouthRod · Post #12 » by **SmashMouthRod** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:21 pm

Dunkin Dutchman wrote:I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2. I think a big reason why he made such a leap this season was because he could play the 3 offensively. With the right people around him, CJ Miles can be a 16-5-3 guy. Great Shooter and above average defender. Start him, bring in Watson, slide Hill to the 2. That will give us a little lineup flexibility in the back court at least.

I agree on George; I hope your right about Miles averaging 16. I heard someone compare Rudez to Gallinari and that kinda makes me want him in the lineup by any means. Maybe him and Solo can play the wings together off the bench with Stuckey providing additional insurance.

Post #13 » by **Grang33r** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:10 am

I don't see any way Copeland gets any playing time on this team. Does he have any trade value? What could they possibly get for him?

The main reason for us to grab him from the Knicks was to stretch out the court for the others, but with the additions of Rudez and Miles, who are fairly good shooting 3-point players, but can also contribute in other ways too, to me just limits the potential of Copeland coming out to play.

MillerTheKiller · Post #14 » by **MillerTheKiller** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 am

SmashMouthRod wrote:
Dunkin Dutchman wrote:I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2. I think a big reason why he made such a leap this season was because he could play the 3 offensively. With the right people around him, CJ Miles can be a 16-5-3 guy. Great Shooter and above average defender. Start him, bring in Watson, slide Hill to the 2. That will give us a little lineup flexibility in the back court at least.

I agree on George; I hope your right about Miles averaging 16. I heard someone compare Rudez to Gallinari and that kinda makes me want him in the lineup by any means. Maybe him and Solo can play the wings together off the bench with Stuckey providing additional insurance.

lol we'll win the chip if he's like Gallinari.

EuroPacer · Post #15 » by **EuroPacer** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:03 pm

Grang33r wrote:I don't see any way Copeland gets any playing time on this team. Does he have any trade value? What could they possibly get for him?

The main reason for us to grab him from the Knicks was to stretch out the court for the others, but with the additions of Rudez and Miles, who are fairly good shooting 3-point players, but can also contribute in other ways too, to me just limits the potential of Copeland coming out to play.

Cope is increasingly beginning to look like a very daft signing. Not that he is a bad player (although I do think many Pacers overhype him) but because there was never space for him on the team when we got Scola. I don't think there was a rush to sign Copeland, so I for the life of me can't understand why we picked him up when we did, they might as well have waited a few weeks to see what else would occur. I have a similar feeling about this off-season, we bring in Miles, than Rudez, than Stuckey - who says we can't get a nice piece by moving on Scola or Cope for those positions?

Wizop · Post #16 » by **Wizop** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:28 pm

Dunkin Dutchman wrote:I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2.

my hope is that someone emerges at the 3 and pushes Paul back to 2. it isn't that I want Paul there so much as I'm hoping one of other 3's plays better than our other 2's.

Dunkin Dutchman · Post #17 » by **Dunkin Dutchman** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:06 pm

Wizop wrote:
Dunkin Dutchman wrote:I don't understand why everything thinks we have to or need to move Paul George to the 2.

my hope is that someone emerges at the 3 and pushes Paul back to 2. it isn't that I want Paul there so much as I'm hoping one of other 3's plays better than our other 2's.

I am hoping that we can use our makeshift lineup at the 2, and even 1 really, so that we don't have to move Paul to the 2. I just think that Rudez defensively is pretty much just a 4 (with the way almost every other team in the league operates) so he is out at the 3. Same with Cope. Solo can help at the 3 spot, but I would say he is not quite ready. While Miles, Stuckey, G. Hill, etc. may not be ideal for us at the 2, they are more proven than what we have at the 3, so I would really just like to see PG their primarily. I believe on experience alone I am more confident in our 2's than anyone emerging at the 3.

Wizop · Post #18 » by **Wizop** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:58 pm

I haven't seen Rudez play but I'm certainly willing to believe he's a 4 and not a 3. I know that's true with Copeland. whether Solo is ready is a valid question. I'm hoping he his but I take your point.

even if he isn't ready to play big minutes though, I'm a fan of the old Auerbach system where you bring a better player off the bench at the first timeout so I can see playing Solo for the first six minutes and then bringing Miles in at the 2 and shifting Paul to the 3. Red created a series of famous Boston Sixth Men (Ramsey, Heinsohn, Havlicek) who came off the bench even though they would have started for other coaches. I don't know that Vogel would consider doesn't something like that but it won a lot of banners for the Celtics.

Post #19 » by **boomershadow** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:27 pm

We only played George at the 2 because we wanted to play both him and Granger. He's better at the 3, and we need him at his best.

8305 · Post #20 » by **8305** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:46 pm

One advantage to not having Lance is that none of the guys who play the sg will require traditional starter minutes. With that thought in mind I'd like to see Miles, Solo and Stuckey each getting about 20 minutes a night. That would cover the 48 minutes at the sg position and the 12 minutes backing up PG at the sf position. I also like the thought of starting Solo. Assuming he is the defender Vogel has hyped him to be that would allow some time each game where PG wouldn't have to chase the opposing team's best wing.

If Stuckey is up to the task I wouldn't be opposed to him getting backup pg minutes ahead of Watson.

Early on I'd like to take a longer look at a Scola, West, Hibbert rotation at the pf and c positions. But, if Louis struggles with his shot as he did the 2nd half of last year I wouldn't continue to ride with him in the rotation. Frank needs to acknowledge that if Luis is shooting consistently we have to look for a better option. Hopefully we have one.

I think better bench production would result from a shorter rotation where those bench guys who are part of the rotation get upward to 25 minutes per game.