RealGM

Our bench really struggles to consistently score. With Ron out and Barnes nursing a sprained ankle, wouldn't it be wise for Sessions to keep the bench competitive with the opponent's?

Our Ginobili, our Jason Terry, our James Harden. I think it's an obvious strategy.

I think it makes a lot of sense for our team. Also, our starting lineup doesn't even have enough shots to go around. Sessions is wasting a lot of his game and energy by walking the ball up and just trying to spread the floor. It might be better for Steve Blake to be out there, moving the ball, feeding others, spotting up for three. The starters' slower pace works for him too.

In the playoffs, rotations are shortened, but still, players need a rest, and losing a few possessions when the starters sit could be the entire difference in the ball game.

Blake
Kobe
Ebanks
Gasol
Bynum

Could still outperform most starting lineups.

And uptempo unit of Sessions, Barnes, McRoberts, and Hill would be competitive with other benches as well.

I think Sessions could be a potent game changer off the bench. He could stil finish games of course, but he'd help prevent us losing leads or getting into holes when most our starters sit.

I'm not sure if I want to experiment in the playoffs.

This should have been apparent very early on. He's better with the 2nd team when he can be more aggressive. With the starters, he does nothing.

I think we do need to experiment...the status quo won't give us the championship.

Harden was destroying our 2nd unit before he got clocked. Ginobili too - historically. This will happen against those teams, and when every possession counts in the playoffs.

Last year, Dirk Nowitzki didn't beat us. It was guys like Terry and Barrea (and Peja) who were killing our bench - and they swept us. They were the difference.

Believing we can ride our starters and rely on a shortened rotation would yield an early exit. Strategic bench play can disrupt and change the entire flow of the game. Game 4 last year in the playoffs was a catastrophic meltdown, to the point where even our starters got into a funk.

I say let Sessions loose, give him the green light, run high pick and rolls with him, and get him feeling good about playing his game. Sessions can average 15+ points, but not with the starters.

We don't have anybody else who can save our bench. It's him.

If he played 35 minutes a game it wouldn't even be an issue. I'd wager to say we'll see a lot of Sessions with the bench in the Playoffs since Brown loves putting him and Blake together.

Btw, nice to see you Miles, I hope for many lengthy posts from you now that your back from semi-retirement.

Nope...this isn't the time to try that. Don't like the fact you'd have to depend on Blake running the offense. Blake is horrid at finding the post men, can't set them up, fails to penetrate, having trouble shooting as it is, and would be a defensive liability.

What works for some teams won't work for us, we're constructed as a post orientate team. Those other teams that run these so called scorers off they're benches have flaws in their starting line ups. Why is this so hard to see or understand ?

The ball is intended to flow through our bigs, and Kobe is also posting...we're about controlling tempo.

Blake is too much of a liability to start

Blake is more hidden with the starting unit. Not only that, I like him as a spot up shooter more than a guy with the ball in his hands. Blake starting makes sense because kobe would control the offense.

I initially envisioned this happening but Blake's level of suckitude has turned me against this. Blake has an issue with taking shots, so playing with Kobe and the twin trees might make this even more obvious that he is by no means productive.

Another issue is that with Blake is that he's actually been more turnover prone with us than his previous stints. I could be wrong with this statistically but that's what I observed off him.

The argument for getting a good PG was to get Kobe in positions where he could attack more produtively. Blake doesn't help with this and quite so often Kobe gets the ball 2 feet away from the 3 point line and a double team parked infront of him, usually coming off Blake's man. This atleast doesn't happen with Sessions on the floor.

The idea to have offense from the bench is great but we need o actually get someone who will do this or promote from within, like he's not a 15 PPG scorer Goudelock to take over this responsibility.

iamworthy wrote:Blake is more hidden with the starting unit. Not only that, I like him as a spot up shooter more than a guy with the ball in his hands. Blake starting makes sense because kobe would control the offense.

Big Game is that an official playoff sig? Never mind. Just checked playoff sig thread! I'm down

The problem with this is that Steve Blake sucks balls at playing with the starters! This simply isn't time to experiment.

i dont know why but when blake and sess are on the floor at the same time is beyond me. Just make a few more big time 3p's and everyone will accept blake as a starting spot up pg that never gets to the ft line.

Sessions should have never been moved to the starting lineup and I was harping on this point when we first got him. I agree completely that he should be our 6th man and spark off the bench. I know it was only 4 games, but our bench looked fantastic when he was leading the charge, and he would still get the bulk of the minutes over Blake so I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like a real no-brainer.

Blake's only real value is as a spot-up shooter, and that's why he fits better with our starters. When he's leading the bench he's completely ineffective because he can't create and doesn't penetrate, so to me we're hiding all of his weaknesses by putting him with the starters.

Neither guy is particularly effective on defense so I just don't understand the logic behind having Sessions start.

BTW, this isn't an experiment so I don't know why people keep saying that. We've already seen the effect that Sessions has on the bench so it's not like we'd throw him out there and hope for the best, and it's not like we've been playing all that great since Sessions became a starter anyway. This is a low risk, high reward move.

And it makes sense.

A thread with two sides who don't appear to be listening to each other.

I think Slava has it -- Sessions off the bench makes the most sense in theory, but in practice it hasn't shown to work. He has been awful at taking care of the ball for large stretches of the season, I can't remember too many times where he's made a play, not the obvious lob pass, but literally made a play like Sessions can. Also Blake would be a great spot up shooter, if only he'd shoot. Maybe he's grown in the last 7 games or so, but to me he's been wildly inconsistent. Hopefully that changes.

One thing: regardless we desperately need to retain Sessions...him coming off the bench after starting may influence his decision to resign. Just a thought

crazyeights wrote:I think Slava has it -- Sessions off the bench makes the most sense in theory, but in practice it hasn't shown to work.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Our bench looked GREAT the first 4 games after we acquired him, so it's not even a theory.

crazyeights wrote:One thing: regardless we desperately need to retain Sessions...him coming off the bench after starting may influence his decision to resign. Just a thought

As long as he gets paid I doubt he would care. What we should do is resign Sessions and make a strong push to bring in Steve Nash next year. Offensively speaking that would be a devastating PG rotation.

semi-sentient wrote:

crazyeights wrote:I think Slava has it -- Sessions off the bench makes the most sense in theory, but in practice it hasn't shown to work.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Our bench looked GREAT the first 4 games after we acquired him, so it's not even a theory.

My bad, hard to make longer posts on my phone...I meant the Blake starting part of that equation....namely in those games Sessions was balling off the bench, Blake didn't shoot and didn't feed the bigs. Instead he looked castrated. So while we need bench production, can we really afford to water down the starters? Historically most of Bynum's points come in the first half. Feed him early and often is what we've got to do. Blake can't do that.

Sure Sessions would end the game, but will we have thrown things off? It's tough to say.

semi-sentient wrote:

crazyeights wrote:One thing: regardless we desperately need to retain Sessions...him coming off the bench after starting may influence his decision to resign. Just a thought

As long as he gets paid I doubt he would care. What we should do is resign Sessions and make a strong push to bring in Steve Nash next year. Offensively speaking that would be a devastating PG rotation.

Would love this.

RocketPower23 wrote:If he played 35 minutes a game it wouldn't even be an issue. I'd wager to say we'll see a lot of Sessions with the bench in the Playoffs since Brown loves putting him and Blake together.

This is the main issue, he's only getting 28 mpg giving Blake way too many minutes at PG with the second unit.

Teams bring a better starter off the bench only when it's a scorer, and the main reason is to split up available shots between the starters and the scoring bench player.

No team ever brings the better passing PG off the bench, because your PG is supposed to run the offense and get everyone involved(ie. make the game easier for his teammates). Sessions was doing a incredible job getting everyone involved in his first week or so of starting, since then the coaching staff told him to "hold it back" a bit and he's had a hard time finding his spots.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in this postseason, to see if Ramon will be allowed to play his game and feel comfortable out there or if the coaching staff will continue to hold him back.

As for our 6th man, like it or not his name is Matt Barnes, and he's done a incredible job this year especially considering his level of pay.

Sessions and Barnes off the bench alone made the Lakers look like they had an true 2nd unit. I don't think its something the Lakers should try to do in the playoffs this year because it might disrupt the team's chemistry. I'm in favor of this next season if we have the same group of guys coming back.