Page 1 of 1

Depth, a problem?

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:38 am
by EnigmaticProblem
It seems as if Sam has no idea as to what he should do with the depth we have. Sometimes it seems as if he's subbing guys in-and-out just to get certain players some burn; concurrently having little clue as to what he's doing.

Perhaps it's depth + Sam = problem. I hate seeing us play small, seeing as to how we don't have a strong rebounding team to begin with. A lot of times Sam will show us how crazy a mofo he's willing to be and exhibit the, now infamous, lineup of Jose/Ewok/Dixon, Parker, Delfino, Moon and Bosh. If he's really in the mood to show off, you can take Delfino out of the mix, maybe Moon, and add Kapono.

I think we need to trim the growing tree, 'cause Adam doesn't know how to handle it. Personally, I'd like to see everyone but Calderon, Ford, Parker, Bosh, Bargnani, Delfino and Humphries packaged off. I wouldn't miss Parker, Delfino or Ford either, were the price right. . .

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:50 am
by omeloon
I've been saying and thinking this for a while. I don't think any coach in the league can properly juggle our roster when healthy. We have too many guys that are good at similar yet different things. Bryan needs to trim yet strengthen our bench. Ideally, we'd get a slightly better big man off the bench who can combine what Rasho and/or Hump and/or Garbo bring to the table. Rasho's contract makes that virtually impossible. Would have liked Varejao, but I don't think Bryan ever had any interest in him.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 9:12 am
by Shak23
We have depth the problem is we lack the premier players. When you have a legit starting 5, it makes things easier in that you know who is coming off the bench whereas Parker can disappear at times, Delfino is streaky, Moon is still unproven, etc.

Looking at our starting 5, its probably one of the weakest in the league.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 9:20 am
by snomeister
Yeah, I just traded the all the depth away when I started association mode in 2k8. Just too hard to manage, players were getting mad at me. I was doing stuff like you said - subbing players just so they could get some burn. It's just not what you should be doing when a game is still on the line.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 11:40 am
by rdtx2005
depth was only an issue when TJ went down.. because that would mean Calderon starts and the 'depth' has no PG to play with.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 2:21 pm
by B-Ball Freak
too many guys that are too similar to each other...they need some variations...but yeah if and when TJ comes back to his normal state then the raptors are that much better and have one of the best bench in the league, the so called "depth" is actually utilized properly. it's amazing how much a diffference a guy can make. if we could only get ronnie brewer from the jazz or a similar type of player and a banger, one who is a defensive minded rebounding big man...we could really do some damage in the east.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 3:04 pm
by Rapsalot
+ 1 it is Depth plus Sam= trouble.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 4:26 pm
by EnigmaticProblem
Rapsalot wrote:+ 1 it is Depth plus Sam= trouble.

Sarcasm?

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:08 pm
by omeloon
Even with TJ coming back there are going to be problems. There will be games when TJ and/or Calderon will be taken out when they shouldn't be just to keep both happy. There will be games Rasho will not play at all, there will be games when Humphries gets no burn. Joey and Dixon are going to continue to be unhappy, perhaps even more. We need at least one two for one trade. Another or a three for one trade wouldn't hurt either

Re: Depth, a problem?

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:16 pm
by MacDaddy
EnigmaticProblem wrote:It seems as if Sam has no idea as to what he should do with the depth we have. Sometimes it seems as if he's subbing guys in-and-out just to get certain players some burn; concurrently having little clue as to what he's doing.

Perhaps it's depth + Sam = problem. I hate seeing us play small, seeing as to how we don't have a strong rebounding team to begin with. A lot of times Sam will show us how crazy a mofo he's willing to be and exhibit the, now infamous, lineup of Jose/Ewok/Dixon, Parker, Delfino, Moon and Bosh. If he's really in the mood to show off, you can take Delfino out of the mix, maybe Moon, and add Kapono.

I think we need to trim the growing tree, 'cause Adam doesn't know how to handle it. Personally, I'd like to see everyone but Calderon, Ford, Parker, Bosh, Bargnani, Delfino and Humphries packaged off. I wouldn't miss Parker, Delfino or Ford either, were the price right. . .


What exactly would happen when more than one player got injured?

Re: Depth, a problem?

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:23 pm
by EnigmaticProblem
MacDaddy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



What exactly would happen when more than one player got injured?

The same that's happening with Ford and Garbajosa out. Inconsistent play, that'll allow us to hold any position from 3-6 in the Eastern Conference. But, even with 'em all healthy, we're not even scarping 1 or 2. . .

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:25 pm
by Rhettmatic
Mitchell's in a tough position. It's not as though any of Kapono, Parker, Delfino, Moon, Graham or Dixon is so immensely talented that he should be on the floor even when struggling (the way Chris Bosh has pretty much earned that right). Also, every single one of those guys is really inconsistent. So Mitchell shuffles his deck to try to find someone who's willing to give him some effort on a particular night.

It's an unenviable position to be in. If we had at least one wing who was head and shoulders above the rest, a bona fide star or at least starter, I think our wing rotation would make a lot more sense.

Posted: Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:25 pm
by EnigmaticProblem
Shak23 wrote:We have depth the problem is we lack the premier players. When you have a legit starting 5, it makes things easier in that you know who is coming off the bench whereas Parker can disappear at times, Delfino is streaky, Moon is still unproven, etc.

Looking at our starting 5, its probably one of the weakest in the league.

I concur. . .