RealGM

It’s a nice problem to have, but a problem nonetheless.

Brandon Jennings is ready to play now – Stan Van Gundy is comfortable with that after seeing clear evidence of progress with his lateral movement – but backup point guard minutes might be the least pressing issue facing the Pistons these days, so well has Steve Blake been playing.

“It’s a tough thing to weigh,” Van Gundy admitted after Monday’s practice. “It’s a dilemma a little bit. But Brandon has looked good.”

One thing that won’t be a complicating factor: Blake’s reaction if and when Jennings is elevated over him to the backup spot behind Reggie Jackson. For that, credit Blake’s professionalism and Van Gundy’s honesty and sense of communications skills.

“That was an understanding of mine coming here,” Blake said. “Coach Van Gundy and I talked about that. There will be times when I’m playing well while he’s injured. When he comes back, the chance of me going to the bench and him playing at some point was an understanding of mine. He’s working his way back to where he wants to be and when that time comes, that’s fine with me. It’s a team thing. I don’t see it as him and I as competition. We’re teammates playing against other people, so when that time comes, that’s totally fine with me.”

Blake is averaging 5.8 points and 3.1 assists in 13 December games while shooting .457 from the 3-point line in 17 minutes a game, giving Jackson the rest that allows him to sustain the burden of not only running the offense but attacking on a majority of possessions when he’s in the game.

“Steve’s been playing well and our bench has actually been good the last three games,” Van Gundy said. “It’s a matter of timing and when we want to go to (Jennings), but he’s ready to go now. He’s done everything for the last couple of weeks. Everything we’ve done, he’s done.”

“He’s definitely made progress in the last couple of days. He’s moving a lot better. (The last two days of practice) helped him. He was able to get up and down the court and play, play with our guys and in our system. It was good for him and he looked good.”

Liqourish wrote:If Jennings can play, play him. Blake might not have sucked as much the last three games, but that's no reason to keep a better player glued to the bench if available. It's a shame he's waited these last three games to play him. Our offense could have used him.

Kilo wrote:^I think any microball line-up would have KCP on the floor over Blake.

Jennings
Jackson
KCP
Johnson
Mook.

Todd3 wrote:

Kilo wrote:^I think any microball line-up would have KCP on the floor over Blake.

Jennings
Jackson
KCP
Johnson
Mook.

I'd prefer Blake because of his playmaking/shooting, with the goal being to have playmakers/shooters at all 5 positions. That's what makes GS small-ball so tough to guard.

KCP would work too, just maybe not as effective in that regard.

Kilo wrote:So do we trade Blake or Dinwiddie? Or just ship Spenny down to the GR Drive for a lengthy stint? I could see Dinwiddie traded at any time, but if the decision is to move Blake, it will be closer to the trade deadline, after seeing Jennings proven healthy for the month and a half between now and mid-February.

If we could get a future 2nd rounder for Dinwiddie, I say we jump at it and use the roster spot on 10-day contracts that come available in about two weeks.

Liqourish wrote:

Todd3 wrote:

Kilo wrote:^I think any microball line-up would have KCP on the floor over Blake.

Jennings
Jackson
KCP
Johnson
Mook.

I'd prefer Blake because of his playmaking/shooting, with the goal being to have playmakers/shooters at all 5 positions. That's what makes GS small-ball so tough to guard.

KCP would work too, just maybe not as effective in that regard.

But Blake is barely a playmaker or shooter. He's a guy who tells guys to move while he dribbles the ball for 20 seconds and then kicks it to someone for a contested shot to bail him out. And his defense is even worse.

Todd3 wrote:

Liqourish wrote:

Todd3 wrote:
I'd prefer Blake because of his playmaking/shooting, with the goal being to have playmakers/shooters at all 5 positions. That's what makes GS small-ball so tough to guard.

KCP would work too, just maybe not as effective in that regard.

But Blake is barely a playmaker or shooter. He's a guy who tells guys to move while he dribbles the ball for 20 seconds and then kicks it to someone for a contested shot to bail him out. And his defense is even worse.

He is a career 39% from 3 vs 33% for KCP. Last 15 games Blake is 45% from 3 (46% FG); KCP is 28% from 3 (40% FG), and Blake is a PG and KCP can barely dribble. He is way better at both.

Defensively no argument, but the idea of going small is for offense and Blake is a better offensive player.

Liqourish wrote:

Todd3 wrote:

Liqourish wrote:
But Blake is barely a playmaker or shooter. He's a guy who tells guys to move while he dribbles the ball for 20 seconds and then kicks it to someone for a contested shot to bail him out. And his defense is even worse.

He is a career 39% from 3 vs 33% for KCP. Last 15 games Blake is 45% from 3 (46% FG); KCP is 28% from 3 (40% FG), and Blake is a PG and KCP can barely dribble. He is way better at both.

Defensively no argument, but the idea of going small is for offense and Blake is a better offensive player.

He's really not though. And for every offensive possession, you'll have a defensive possession. No way I'd put Blake on the floor if we absolutely don't need to.

Todd3 wrote:Blake is a better shooter, dribbler, and passer.

When going small for offense it's understood that you are conceding defense as the tradeoff. Whether it's Blake or KCP in with that lineup, there would major issues defensively either way, particularly in the frontcourt with Morris & SJ at C/PF. In fact, having KCP at SF could prove even more problematic than Blake at SG, if matched on a bigger 3 who posts him up.

Blkbrd671 wrote:Little concerned, Blakes been playing well and it takes our PG's on average 10 games to adjust to our offense and really get it going. Can we afford the adjustment period

Cowology wrote:

Blkbrd671 wrote:Little concerned, Blakes been playing well and it takes our PG's on average 10 games to adjust to our offense and really get it going. Can we afford the adjustment period

Don't gotta play the dude 30 mpg. He'll be fine.

coordinator0 wrote:

Todd3 wrote:Blake is a better shooter, dribbler, and passer.

When going small for offense it's understood that you are conceding defense as the tradeoff. Whether it's Blake or KCP in with that lineup, there would major issues defensively either way, particularly in the frontcourt with Morris & SJ at C/PF. In fact, having KCP at SF could prove even more problematic than Blake at SG, if matched on a bigger 3 who posts him up.

No. I've seen you make the "Blake is 6'3 so he can play SG" argument a few times but it doesn't hold water. He's way too frail and slow to guard a wing. You can hardly call what Blake does at PG defense, and it wouldn't be any better against bigger guys. Caldwell-Pope has played some SF in the past and defended just as well there. I like the idea of having two point guards on the floor at times whether that be Jackson and Jennings or Jackson and Blake but three is too much.

Van Gundy would never go for an all offense lineup regardless. He's pretty devoted to his defense.

Blkbrd671 wrote:

Cowology wrote:

Blkbrd671 wrote:Little concerned, Blakes been playing well and it takes our PG's on average 10 games to adjust to our offense and really get it going. Can we afford the adjustment period

Don't gotta play the dude 30 mpg. He'll be fine.

honestly i get really worried about things like this and the impact on our team though Blake indicates he knew this was coming. Your absolutely right that its backup minutes which is different that i overlooked