Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,221
- And1: 443
- Joined: Nov 28, 2012
Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
The standard theme around here and with commentators about the Pistons starting the big three up front with Jennings at PG is that the Pistons absolutely have to have a great 3 pt shooter in the lineup to space things out. That's one of the reasons there is a lot of commentary pushing for KCP to be in the starting lineup - and I do believe that's ideal, and that KCP is going to be a terrific player in this league, and for us in particular.
But I am starting to see glimpses that Stuckey with the starting group can work - perhaps work very well. We have three very unique big men. Smith will shoot a barely acceptable 3-pt percentage, and Monroe right now is probably going to be an o.k. mid-range shooter (not as reliable as he will be a couple seasons from now, but acceptable), and Drummond is improving as a low post player but with gobs of room to go before he's accomplished. However, all three of these guys are excellent and wiling passers, and all three command a ton of defensive attention trying (usually unsuccessfully) to keep them from dominating the offensive boards.
So, here comes Stuckey, playing his usual game which is about creating havoc as he drives into the lane. When he's doing that with the big three in there, it gives us a quality of being a team of about 4 Joe Fraziers, pummeling the living sh*t out of helpless teams. Sure there's lane congestion, but Stuckey kindof loves lane congestion because he's all about getting fouled, and he's so strong that that doesn't bother him. And with defensive attention frantically trying to make sure our 3-big guys aren't beating them to offensive rebounding positions, and with their great ability to make tight interior passes, it seems to me that Stuckey can be extremely effective at playing his game.
Sure, we can go with one or two of our big guys, and have spread the floor guys like Datome in there, and Stuckey's should be just fine with that. But, I can see our identity being that we are becoming the league's best smashmouth power team, and Stuckey being the guard on our team capable of playing that style. He can even do that from the PG position, playing with KCP or Chauncey spreading the floor.
But I am starting to see glimpses that Stuckey with the starting group can work - perhaps work very well. We have three very unique big men. Smith will shoot a barely acceptable 3-pt percentage, and Monroe right now is probably going to be an o.k. mid-range shooter (not as reliable as he will be a couple seasons from now, but acceptable), and Drummond is improving as a low post player but with gobs of room to go before he's accomplished. However, all three of these guys are excellent and wiling passers, and all three command a ton of defensive attention trying (usually unsuccessfully) to keep them from dominating the offensive boards.
So, here comes Stuckey, playing his usual game which is about creating havoc as he drives into the lane. When he's doing that with the big three in there, it gives us a quality of being a team of about 4 Joe Fraziers, pummeling the living sh*t out of helpless teams. Sure there's lane congestion, but Stuckey kindof loves lane congestion because he's all about getting fouled, and he's so strong that that doesn't bother him. And with defensive attention frantically trying to make sure our 3-big guys aren't beating them to offensive rebounding positions, and with their great ability to make tight interior passes, it seems to me that Stuckey can be extremely effective at playing his game.
Sure, we can go with one or two of our big guys, and have spread the floor guys like Datome in there, and Stuckey's should be just fine with that. But, I can see our identity being that we are becoming the league's best smashmouth power team, and Stuckey being the guard on our team capable of playing that style. He can even do that from the PG position, playing with KCP or Chauncey spreading the floor.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,756
- And1: 246
- Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
I was watching Stuckey pretty closely last night and the more I watched, the more I thought that maybe his "brand of basketball" will work with our new "big 3". Stuckey is a slasher, that has never had a knack for finishing, but with the new frontcourt we have some serious glass-eaters out there. Drummond lives for cleaning up misses and tip-ins. Stuckey hasn't been what I've considered a "selfish" player in his career, but he's taken what were bad shots most of his career. If he has guys like Monroe, Josh and Andre to pass the ball to as he's slashing, I think he will. If he does miss, he has a lot more guys capable of pulling off his misses and resetting the offense. Stuckey has always moved well without the ball and a guy like Josh seems to really like playing point forward. Personally, I think it says something about Bynum when Josh plays Point Forward and gets the ball to teammates better than Will who is supposed to be the PG. Also, Stuckey will play inside, he will post up smaller guards. I was personally impressed by his post-up and jump hook over a guard last night (looked like a big man on it). He took the time to get deep post-up position, called for the ball, took a few dribbles, improved his post-up position and he executed a beautiful jump hook over his man. I know there has been a lot of Stuckey hate over the past few years, myself included, but if he can bring that kind of intensity and willingness to play team ball to the game, he may just prove his worth.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,221
- And1: 443
- Joined: Nov 28, 2012
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Yeah. ^^^^
Of course, then the next question is, assuming he does fit, will Joe resign him? Or trade him midseason? Not because he doesn't fit, but because Dumars has to be concerned with team building and salary cap stuff as he's moving us to championship contention.
It's be nice to keep him (assuming he fits) and Monroe and Drummond and Smith and KCP and Singler and Mitchell -- but at some point, no team can afford to pay full price for all of its best players, if there are that many players that are high performers. Maybe all of our guys will get together and agree to sacrifice some of their $'s to keep all the key guys together. (Maybe I'll win the Powerball next week).
Of course, then the next question is, assuming he does fit, will Joe resign him? Or trade him midseason? Not because he doesn't fit, but because Dumars has to be concerned with team building and salary cap stuff as he's moving us to championship contention.
It's be nice to keep him (assuming he fits) and Monroe and Drummond and Smith and KCP and Singler and Mitchell -- but at some point, no team can afford to pay full price for all of its best players, if there are that many players that are high performers. Maybe all of our guys will get together and agree to sacrifice some of their $'s to keep all the key guys together. (Maybe I'll win the Powerball next week).
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,756
- And1: 246
- Joined: Jan 15, 2005
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Brapman wrote:Yeah. ^^^^
Of course, then the next question is, assuming he does fit, will Joe resign him? Or trade him midseason? Not because he doesn't fit, but because Dumars has to be concerned with team building and salary cap stuff as he's moving us to championship contention.
It's be nice to keep him (assuming he fits) and Monroe and Drummond and Smith and KCP and Singler and Mitchell -- but at some point, no team can afford to pay full price for all of its best players, if there are that many players that are high performers. Maybe all of our guys will get together and agree to sacrifice some of their $'s to keep all the key guys together. (Maybe I'll win the Powerball next week).
I don't think Stuckey will be a Piston after this season or even for the entire duration of this year. I think Joe is gonna be trying to wait and see how big of offer sheet that Monroe is able to sign and he's already preparing his cap for that payday. We still have to resign Drummond in a couple years, it's not cheap to have a dominating frontcourt. They are easily some of the highest paid players, (frontcourt guys). I expect that Stuckey is auditioning and that Joe will be listening to offers all season long if he can play well.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
- engelbert321
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,396
- And1: 1,463
- Joined: Jul 24, 2011
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
No, no, no, no, and no. 6th man is his ideal role.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
- ComboGuardCity
- RealGM
- Posts: 25,973
- And1: 4,897
- Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
In a perfect world Stuckey gets paired in the 2nd unit with Chauncey.
Jennings/Billups
KCP/Stuckey
Smith/Singler/KCP
Monroe/Smith
Drummond/Monroe
That's what I want to see come playoff time. I'm hoping Datome can prove to be better than Singler.
Jennings/Billups
KCP/Stuckey
Smith/Singler/KCP
Monroe/Smith
Drummond/Monroe
That's what I want to see come playoff time. I'm hoping Datome can prove to be better than Singler.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,113
- And1: 3,441
- Joined: Apr 19, 2010
- Location: Michigan
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
^ Swap Singler with KCP as the backup SF and I agree.
Right now I can live with either KCP or Stuckey starting, just as long as it's not Billups. I have no interest in midget backcourts.
Right now I can live with either KCP or Stuckey starting, just as long as it's not Billups. I have no interest in midget backcourts.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,465
- And1: 2,323
- Joined: Apr 01, 2013
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Stuckey was killing the Grizz last night, no doubt about it.
Does that automatically qualify him as the ideal SG? Not really. Too small of a sample size. But, I do believe the best fit is either him or KCP right now. Billups doesn't have the legs to hoist up those shots consistently anymore, and Bynum is too reckless.
Does that automatically qualify him as the ideal SG? Not really. Too small of a sample size. But, I do believe the best fit is either him or KCP right now. Billups doesn't have the legs to hoist up those shots consistently anymore, and Bynum is too reckless.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
- imagump1313
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,908
- And1: 3,935
- Joined: Apr 27, 2013
- Location: Behind You
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Stuckey does nothing to make anyone else better. NOTHING. I noticed that when he is in the game everyone stands around and watches. Bynum is far from the perfect player but at least he tries to get others involved. Drummond cuts to the basket more, there is more movement from everyone. Sure, Stuckey played well solo offensively at the cost of everyone else being non-existent offensively when he is in the game.
Also, the guy cant shoot from the outside and those drives to the basket aren't going to fall like that every night. If I was guarding him, I would give him a 10 foot cushion and dare him to shoot from the outside all night. When those contested layups aren't falling he becomes more of a negative than a plus. We have all seen this from him 100 times before, I don't understand why people keep thinking he is something he isn't.
I guess after all that blabbering I think he should be a situational off the bench player......
Also, the guy cant shoot from the outside and those drives to the basket aren't going to fall like that every night. If I was guarding him, I would give him a 10 foot cushion and dare him to shoot from the outside all night. When those contested layups aren't falling he becomes more of a negative than a plus. We have all seen this from him 100 times before, I don't understand why people keep thinking he is something he isn't.
I guess after all that blabbering I think he should be a situational off the bench player......
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,918
- And1: 936
- Joined: Jul 19, 2009
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
It seems like we are only team in the NBA that can't get a better SG than Stuckey.
How is Stuckey a good fit in a starting lineup that has just one shooter?
How is Stuckey a good fit in a starting lineup that has just one shooter?
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
- kurtis48239
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,005
- And1: 1,056
- Joined: May 19, 2011
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
I think a big factor when it comes to keeping stuckey is him being fine with any role and not being part of that whole protest the coach thing.If its true and his been a profesional behind the scenes and really taking the role of vet to the younger guys,dumars might feel loyalty to him.
If he can become a consistent slasher and make his shots in the paint or he has the passing and handles to dump it off inside to one of the bigs,then can become a big part of the team.Hes basicly the only vet sg we have that can defend the opposing teams guards.
If he can become a consistent slasher and make his shots in the paint or he has the passing and handles to dump it off inside to one of the bigs,then can become a big part of the team.Hes basicly the only vet sg we have that can defend the opposing teams guards.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,527
- And1: 1,230
- Joined: Dec 13, 2003
- Location: Surprise AZ
- Contact:
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Stuckey looked like a better finisher but I have to wonder if that is more because bigs couldnt rotate and leave our bigs alone to clean the glass.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
- mercury
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,407
- And1: 679
- Joined: Jul 22, 2003
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
R.S. is going for his next contract... so far this excludes teammates... nice when they fall... Bull in the China shop when they don't.... stay tuned for more of "it's all about me"
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,252
- And1: 2,875
- Joined: May 29, 2011
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
One decent outing and here we go again.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,836
- And1: 553
- Joined: Jul 23, 2002
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
I like Stuckey in the sixth man role. He pairs well with a good three pointer in Billups.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 6,374
- And1: 2,604
- Joined: Aug 12, 2010
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
Before the season I thought it would be absolutely necessary to have at least two shooters in the backcourt to balance out the frontcourt. But that has not been necessary at all. This frontcourt is so good, teams just can't stop them inside, regardless of how many shooters are out there. As evidenced by leading the league in points in the paint through 3 games, all with Bynum starting and Chauncey as the only shooter in the starting lineup.
So if it can work with that backcourt, I don't see why it couldn't with Jennings and Stuckey, who are pretty much the same players as Chauncey/Bynum, in terms of skillsets.
I wouldn't mind seeing Stuckey get a start with Jennings. I thought starting Billups would be good for his experience, but so far these guys have needed it. They've all played like vets without him, and he's not been playng very good himself. So maybe going with Stuckey will give us a boost to start games, and let Chauncey feast on backups with the second unit.
OT: with Chandler out 4-6 weeks for NY and us already having a game up on the Knicks, that 5 seed is looking very realistic right now.
So if it can work with that backcourt, I don't see why it couldn't with Jennings and Stuckey, who are pretty much the same players as Chauncey/Bynum, in terms of skillsets.
I wouldn't mind seeing Stuckey get a start with Jennings. I thought starting Billups would be good for his experience, but so far these guys have needed it. They've all played like vets without him, and he's not been playng very good himself. So maybe going with Stuckey will give us a boost to start games, and let Chauncey feast on backups with the second unit.
OT: with Chandler out 4-6 weeks for NY and us already having a game up on the Knicks, that 5 seed is looking very realistic right now.
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,721
- And1: 373
- Joined: Jul 25, 2002
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
I have always hated rodney Stuckey. He makes the team worse both mentally and physically. Didn't he lead the mutiny in 2011???
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,275
- And1: 9,770
- Joined: Feb 04, 2005
- Location: San Francisco, CA
-
Re: Stuckey with the starters - revisiting "fit"
gusman wrote:I have always hated rodney Stuckey. He makes the team worse both mentally and physically. Didn't he lead the mutiny in 2011???
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Pretty sure that was Richard(head) Hamilton.