RealGM

I'm thinking about how we're a somewhat older team, with an influx of young and old to keep our foundation together nicely. If you think about it, we've got a fighting chance to do some damage.

• Steve Nash will be healthy, he's had a good break and his legs are fresh. There's no doubt he'll be great but with the extra time off and a lighter schedule he might be even better than usual. The key for Nash is to shoot more often, we're missing an offensive juggernaut so Nash will have to put up more open jumpers to keep us afloat.

• Grant Hill will be rested as well, and considering the fact he's a superb defender and his roll is that, he can be fresh too. He's been very quiet this off season too. I don't know if he'll be shooting or providing offense for Phoenix, but you know he'll be locking players up on defense. Will he be a reserve? At 38, he's running out of gas.

With our two old guys fresh and ready to go, can we go on a run?

no.


/End of thread.

Kerrsed wrote:no.


/End of thread.

oh come on kerrsed

dont be a silly goose :>

lighter schedule? lol

The schedule is much tougher, tigther and more frequent back to backs and less rest. Who cares if they play 16 games less when they play almost 20 additional games in the last 4 month of the season.

The shorter schedule hurts Hill and Nash.

MarJJMar wrote:lighter schedule? lol

The schedule is much tougher, tigther and more frequent back to backs and less rest. Who cares if they play 16 games less when they play almost 20 additional games in the last 4 month of the season.

The shorter schedule hurts Hill and Nash.

For once, i have to agree with MarJJMar 100%. It pains me to say that, but is the utter truth.

SUN wrote:I'm thinking about how we're a somewhat older team...

That's the problem. The season will be a condensed 66 games w/ more back-to-back games, and even some back-to-back-to-back stretches. Remember how great we were last year on back-to-backs?

— The season will run through April 26, only eight days after the original schedule was slated to end. This comes despite the fact the season is starting 55 days late.

— Every team will play at least one back-to-back-to-back stretch, something that hasn’t been done since the 1999 season, which followed a lockout, too, but featured a 50-game schedule. No team will play more than one back-to-back-to-back.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2 ... e-schedule

SUN wrote:I'm thinking about how we're a somewhat older team, with an influx of young and old to keep our foundation together nicely. If you think about it, we've got a fighting chance to do some damage.

• Steve Nash will be healthy, he's had a good break and his legs are fresh. There's no doubt he'll be great but with the extra time off and a lighter schedule he might be even better than usual. The key for Nash is to shoot more often, we're missing an offensive juggernaut so Nash will have to put up more open jumpers to keep us afloat.

• Grant Hill will be rested as well, and considering the fact he's a superb defender and his roll is that, he can be fresh too. He's been very quiet this off season too. I don't know if he'll be shooting or providing offense for Phoenix, but you know he'll be locking players up on defense. Will he be a reserve? At 38, he's running out of gas.

With our two old guys fresh and ready to go, can we go on a run?

If we're going to have a shot at the playoffs we're going to have to win early and often, because the tighter schedule+the back-back-backs towards the end means that our vets will wear down faster than usual.

Of course, Turner will be trying to revamp our defense too, so there will be an adjustment period in the beginning as well.

Wait and see, I guess.

Our defensive bigs at this time last year:
1) Frye
2) Warrick
3) Crippled Fropez--worthless
4) Turk--beyond worthless

Our defensive bigs this year:
1) Gortat
2) Markieff
3) Frye
4) FA?
5) healthy Lawal?
6) Warrick

Offensive chemistry:
1) greatly improved because we won't massively overhaul our team at all this year, let alone twice in one season like last year.
2) no Earl Barron
3) two stretch-bigs now--we're not so desperately dependent on Frye
4) decent set of wings who can shoot/slash--plenty for Nash to work with
5) oh yeah, Steve Nash

I like these kinds of posts and I want to believe they have one more run in them, but those reasons for thinking we have a chance definitely sounds like BS. There's no way this schedule is going to be an advantage for Nash and Hill.

Still, I'm looking forward to the season in the hopes that they'll be a good team. They'll have Gortat for a full season this time and they won't have Carter or Turk. It has to be better than last year, right?

Dallas showed in the playoffs that having an older team is just an excuse. Jason Kidd is a year older than Nash and he just got his team a championship.

Los Soles wrote:Our defensive bigs at this time last year:
1) Frye
2) Warrick
3) Crippled Fropez--worthless
4) Turk--beyond worthless

Our defensive bigs this year:
1) Gortat
2) Markieff
3) Frye
4) FA?
5) healthy Lawal?
6) Warrick

Offensive chemistry:
1) greatly improved because we won't massively overhaul our team at all this year, let alone twice in one season like last year.
2) no Earl Barron
3) two stretch-bigs now--we're not so desperately dependent on Frye
4) decent set of wings who can shoot/slash--plenty for Nash to work with
5) oh yeah, Steve Nash

I really do think we should get rid of Warrick. He gives us a tiny punch on offense(I'MMA TRY TO DUNK FROM THE THREE POINT LINE!!!) but he doesn't contribute much anything else. I'd rather Chilldress, Markieff and Lawal get his minutes.

Rest Nash every second game. Get 20-24 wins. Get top 10 pick. Drat next franchise player. Either trade draft pick in a package for a young studwho wants out or keep. Make a run next season.

Rest Nash every second game. Get 20-24 wins. Get top 10 pick. Drat next franchise player. Either trade draft pick in a package for a young studwho wants out or keep. Make a run next season.

Anything is possible. If we find some chemistry early, we can go on good runs. Gentry will have to revisit that two line up hockey style changes that gives our guys rest. So, that will all depend on if we can pick up another point, and another big. I would also want us to bring in a young SG, that weren't drafted, which there were a few decent ones.

This is what I would do: 1) resign Hill 2) sign a decent FA PG 3) sign Sean Williams 4) create a good two squad team, and have them get used to each other 5) have fun and shoot the lights out.

Start Nash, Dudley, Chilldress, Frye, and Gortat. Second squad, Hill, undrafted rook, Warrick, Morris, Williams. Run a zone with that second unit, with Warrick at the top of the key, because it seemed to be the only place he played good defense, with steals. First squad has almost that four out one in that Soles likes, with Chilldress getting every loose ball and extra shots for Nash, Dudley, and Frye. The second squad is almost all defense, holding leads for us, while Hill and Warrick get us some points, and foul shots to extend the game, and rest time for Nash. Then find one or two inter mingled squads to get rest for guys, or new chemistry for max output.

That leaves us with Lopez, Siler, Dowdell or FA PG, Peitrus, and Lawal. I would trade Peitrus to a team looking for vet leadership and under the cap for a second rounder or better. Sub in Dowdell or FA PG for Nash in every other back to back second game and the middle game of the back to back to back. Then use the others for practice and possible injuries. If we trade Peitrus, pick up another swing man on the super cheap, just to have 15 players.

Sounds a bit crazy, but if the chem developes, I still think that anything is possible.

Run with a second unit of:

Dowdell/FA Pg
Brooks
Pietrus
Childress
Morris
Tell Brooks to play a "Barbosa" type role next to Dowdell, and get Pietrus and Morris to spread the floor wth the 3's. Childress = Lou?

Start:

Nash
Dudley
Hill
Frye
Gortat

Bench/Amnesty: Warrick

Doesn't Brooks have a no opt out contract in China?

RunDogGun wrote:Doesn't Brooks have a no opt out contract in China?

Correct, but if he acts up, or starts playing bad, they can cut him.

Kerrsed wrote:

RunDogGun wrote:Doesn't Brooks have a no opt out contract in China?

Correct, but if he acts up, or starts playing bad, they can cut him.

So can the Suns pay him to moon the crowd at his next game?

Nash would never sit - he'd ask to be traded.

but to the previous post - it's really easy to forget how sad the situation was in the first half of last year, isn't it. Poor Earl Barron .. his layup percentage was about the same as his three point numbers.

Anyone heard anything at all about how Sideshow Rob's back is doing? The one silver lining may be the extra time he got to rehab it. wasn't it supposed to take 18 months r something?

It seems like most people think we should start Frye--and I'm as big a Frye advocate as anyone. But I actually think we should start Markieff. Markieff is a similar kind of stretch-big and he gives us a very solid defensive frontcourt with Gortat.

But the best part is that Frye can come in for either Gortat or Markieff, depending on matchups and such. We can have Frye back in the role he had in 2010, greatly boosting the effectiveness of the bench.

I don't mind starting Morris, but I just don't see Gentry doing it. With almost zero training camp, and Frye's body of work with the club, I just don't see Morris getting the spot over Frye. Plus Frye has always played better defense when he doesn't have to be the anchor. With The Gortat anchoring the defense, Frye will look even better defensively. And Frye is streaky, so if he can get going early with his shot, it will give us chances in this shorter season.