We Are Stuck With Him - The Lance Stephenson Thread II

MasterIchiro · Post #721 » by **MasterIchiro** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:53 pm

15 minutes for Lance should mean 15 for Al.

Post #722 » by **yosemiteben** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:55 pm

MasterIchiro wrote:15 minutes for Lance should mean 15 for Al.

Lance is gonna have to do a lot more running as a wing than Al will as a big so you can't directly compare the minutes, but they are probably going to limit Al's minutes just like they did last year.

“He’s not going to play a ton of minutes these first few games,” Clifford said at shootaround. “He did a good job with his rehab, but by the nature of that injury he was limited in how much cardio he could do.

“So just like Al last year, we’ll just play him as he can. He’s not ready for a lot of minutes.”

The then-Bobcats lost center Al Jefferson to an ankle sprain early last season. His first two games back from that injury, Jefferson was limited to 25 minutes per game.

Source

Braggins · Post #723 » by **Braggins** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:02 pm

Al could barely make it 25 minutes without being gassed before the injury. They should limit him more than that when he returns this time.

MasterIchiro · Post #724 » by **MasterIchiro** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:09 pm

Braggins wrote:Al could barely make it 25 minutes without being gassed before the injury. They should limit him more than that when he returns this time.

10 minutes

tondi123 · Post #725 » by **tondi123** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:13 pm

Just give Al Maxiells minutes and make him earn more than that.

Radu_Hornets · Post #726 » by **Radu_Hornets** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:02 pm

I didn't really went through the thread of the game, but am I the only one who liked what I saw from Lance last night ?

mrknowitall215 · Post #727 » by **mrknowitall215** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:09 pm

Radu_Hornets wrote:I didn't really went through the thread of the game, but am I the only one who liked what I saw from Lance last night ?

Outside of the missed free throws and lack of being a 3-point threat, I thought Stephenson played well and gave the 2nd unit a spark in the comeback capped by Hairston's perimeter prowess

Radu_Hornets · Post #728 » by **Radu_Hornets** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:14 pm

mrknowitall215 wrote:
Radu_Hornets wrote:I didn't really went through the thread of the game, but am I the only one who liked what I saw from Lance last night ?

Outside of the missed free throws and lack of being a 3-point threat, I thought Stephenson played well and gave the 2nd unit a spark in the comeback capped by Hairston's perimeter prowess

Did you see that Lance was quite often leading the offense ?

Does Cliff recognized that Lance could be kind of the point guard of the second unit ?

mrknowitall215 · Post #729 » by **mrknowitall215** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:25 pm

Radu_Hornets wrote:
mrknowitall215 wrote:
Radu_Hornets wrote:I didn't really went through the thread of the game, but am I the only one who liked what I saw from Lance last night ?

Outside of the missed free throws and lack of being a 3-point threat, I thought Stephenson played well and gave the 2nd unit a spark in the comeback capped by Hairston's perimeter prowess

Did you see that Lance was quite often leading the offense ?

Does Cliff recognized that Lance could be kind of the point guard of the second unit ?

Yes, Stephenson was the primary ball handler and leader of the 2nd unit it appeared. He missed a few decent looks, but he wasn't over-dribbling at near the rate he did earlier in the season, and he was more precise with ball movement

BeesWax · Post #730 » by **BeesWax** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:09 pm

mrknowitall215 wrote:
Radu_Hornets wrote:
mrknowitall215 wrote:
Outside of the missed free throws and lack of being a 3-point threat, I thought Stephenson played well and gave the 2nd unit a spark in the comeback capped by Hairston's perimeter prowess

Did you see that Lance was quite often leading the offense ?

Does Cliff recognized that Lance could be kind of the point guard of the second unit ?

Yes, Stephenson was the primary ball handler and leader of the 2nd unit it appeared. He missed a few decent looks, but he wasn't over-dribbling at near the rate he did earlier in the season, and he was more precise with ball movement

In this offense he does not have to over dribble. The ball moves freely and comes back to people. In the early starters offense the ball just sat places. Sometimes with Lance and others with Kemba and Al. This offense is much more suited to what Lance has always done best. Also this is likely why Lance was posting his best numbers when he was out there with the bench guys early in the season.

2Mas · Post #731 » by **2Mas** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:32 pm

Lance, Williams, Neal for Joe Johnson?

mrknowitall215 · Post #732 » by **mrknowitall215** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:56 pm

2Mas wrote:Lance, Williams, Neal for Joe Johnson?

Yes

UNCNYC · Post #733 » by **UNCNYC** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:43 pm

Sad thing is I know we were offered something DECENT for Lance and turned it down. Now with him being relegated to the bench we wont even get that for him

Post #734 » by **yosemiteben** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:55 pm

UNCNYC wrote:Sad thing is I know we were offered something DECENT for Lance and turned it down. Now with him being relegated to the bench we wont even get that for him

Nobody would've given us a good offer based on last year's play given that no one was too interested in signing him in FA. His early play certainly wouldn't have helped his value, so not sure why you are assuming anyone was really interested, other than Brooklyn. We could probably take our pick from Brooklyn's high $ contracts given what they have going on at the moment.

UNCNYC · Post #735 » by **UNCNYC** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:00 am

yosemiteben wrote:
UNCNYC wrote:Sad thing is I know we were offered something DECENT for Lance and turned it down. Now with him being relegated to the bench we wont even get that for him

Nobody would've given us a good offer based on last year's play given that no one was too interested in signing him in FA. His early play certainly wouldn't have helped his value, so not sure why you are assuming anyone was really interested, other than Brooklyn. We could probably take our pick from Brooklyn's high $ contracts given what they have going on at the moment.

From what I heard we were offered something for him. My guess is it was at least a first rounder. Also the brooklyn rumors and indiana rumors as well. I would have let him go for a first rounder and took my chances with that. I understand about free agency just ending for him, but some teams would do PACKAGE deals so it can't be looked at as just he wasn't wanted as a free agent s he wont be wanted a few months later. Maybe a team would have considered him and Jefferson or him and MKG or a pic etc...

catch20two · Post #736 » by **catch20two** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:18 am

I would trade each of Lance, Marv, and Roberts for expirings just so we can get a do-over in free agency. No way we could get worse.

UNCNYC · Post #737 » by **UNCNYC** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:34 am

MasterIchiro wrote:15 minutes for Lance should mean 15 for Al.

16 minutes for al. That extra minute as courtesy since hes been here longer

Paradise · Post #738 » by **Paradise** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:29 am

Nets fan here. It's being reported in our camp that a deal would include either Zeller, Biyombo or Vonleh.

Which one do you guys consider to be untouchable?

catch20two · Post #739 » by **catch20two** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:33 am

Paradise wrote:Nets fan here. It's being reported in our camp that a deal would include either Zeller, Biyombo or Vonleh.

Which one do you guys consider to be untouchable?

Biz is the most untouchable one.

Liver_Pooty · Post #740 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:33 am

Paradise wrote:Nets fan here. It's being reported in our camp that a deal would include either Zeller, Biyombo or Vonleh.

Which one do you guys consider to be untouchable?

Do you have any links or sources? Lance and one of those three for whom? Better be a hell of a deal or that would be a joke.