PG (Atl): Raps take Hawk Two-Ah in Toronto (25/26 edition)

[NinjaBro]

It's not just this fan base. Darko was so disgusted with Quickley in the 4th quarter that he benched him for the 2nd time in 3 games and have Shead close out the game.

Quickley has his games where he feels he has to do it all and doesn't make enough of his shots. Shead, at least, has a little better understanding of his role. Once IQ drives, he all too often tries to go all the way or puts a floater. Defences collapse on him in the paint. It's a drive-and-dish league and we need a bit more of that from IQ to keep opposing defences honest. (Small data point - despite his shooting woes, Gradey still has the fourth best corner three make percentage in the league at over 50%... we ought to make more use of that.)

IQ started the 4th quarter and played 8 min in a row at that point or something close to that. He needed a breather and with the game in hand/shead winning his minutes he didnt have to go back in

Stop it. I can see the disgust in Darko's face all the way from Vancouver.

[ATLTimekeeper]

IQ doesn't really probe deep though, not enough anyway. Sometimes he can get right to the rim, but alot of his probes create no advantage, rarely get the ball below the FT line extended and just burns that 7 seconds or more, and puts us in a place where instead of drunkenly singing happy holidays, we have to listen to Jack yell "clock". Jack was a coach, you can hear in his voice when he wants to bench IQ, and I think its just all the time now.

Yes, and no. He doesn't probe, he's not a waterbug style PG. He often will opt for his floater if there's space, rather than trying to make a stab at the rim. This still draws defensive attention. Now, remember I'm just comparing him specifically to Barnes in this role. IQ drives more, scores as well and passes WAY more off the half court drive than Barnes (50% to 27%). For what we have, we need him to have the ball and create some movement.

[Dexjackson]

Barnes seems to have that impact on the defensive end. I've noticed players either try to get Scottie off of them right away by calling for a screen or they just pass the ball off. Haven't seen too many players try to attack him one on one.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

This confirms our eye test! Johnson wanted none of Barnes. His two attempts were 3's so he wanted nothing to do with Barnes' physicality!

[junot111]

IQ doesn't really probe deep though, not enough anyway. Sometimes he can get right to the rim, but alot of his probes create no advantage, rarely get the ball below the FT line extended and just burns that 7 seconds or more, and puts us in a place where instead of drunkenly singing happy holidays, we have to listen to Jack yell "clock". Jack was a coach, you can hear in his voice when he wants to bench IQ, and I think its just all the time now.

Yes, and no. He doesn't probe, he's not a waterbug style PG. He often will opt for his floater if there's space, rather than trying to make a stab at the rim. This still draws defensive attention. Now, remember I'm just comparing him specifically to Barnes in this role. IQ drives more, scores as well and passes WAY more off the half court drive than Barnes (50% to 27%). For what we have, we need him to have the ball and create some movement.

Where did you get those numbers? Does it account for quality of pass (eg. Leading to assist or just resetting the possession)? I wouldn't want either as my primary half court initiator but eye test tells me Barnes drives are more conducive to scoring.

[Madvillainy2004]

IQ doesn't really probe deep though, not enough anyway. Sometimes he can get right to the rim, but alot of his probes create no advantage, rarely get the ball below the FT line extended and just burns that 7 seconds or more, and puts us in a place where instead of drunkenly singing happy holidays, we have to listen to Jack yell "clock". Jack was a coach, you can hear in his voice when he wants to bench IQ, and I think its just all the time now.

Yes, and no. He doesn't probe, he's not a waterbug style PG. He often will opt for his floater if there's space, rather than trying to make a stab at the rim. This still draws defensive attention. Now, remember I'm just comparing him specifically to Barnes in this role. IQ drives more, scores as well and passes WAY more off the half court drive than Barnes (50% to 27%). For what we have, we need him to have the ball and create some movement.

Where did you get those numbers? Does it account for quality of pass (eg. Leading to assist or just resetting the possession)? I wouldn't want either as my primary half court initiator but eye test tells me Barnes drives are more conducive to scoring.

Its on NBA.com IQs drives lead to twice as many assists and he actually turns it over slightly less than Barnes on his drives as well.

[HumbleRen]

Shead executes Darko’s offensive system better than IQ despite being significantly less talented than IQ. Expect Shead to close games over IQ more often moving forward.

[ATLTimekeeper]

IQ doesn't really probe deep though, not enough anyway. Sometimes he can get right to the rim, but alot of his probes create no advantage, rarely get the ball below the FT line extended and just burns that 7 seconds or more, and puts us in a place where instead of drunkenly singing happy holidays, we have to listen to Jack yell "clock". Jack was a coach, you can hear in his voice when he wants to bench IQ, and I think its just all the time now.

Yes, and no. He doesn't probe, he's not a waterbug style PG. He often will opt for his floater if there's space, rather than trying to make a stab at the rim. This still draws defensive attention. Now, remember I'm just comparing him specifically to Barnes in this role. IQ drives more, scores as well and passes WAY more off the half court drive than Barnes (50% to 27%). For what we have, we need him to have the ball and create some movement.

Where did you get those numbers? Does it account for quality of pass (eg. Leading to assist or just resetting the possession)? I wouldn't want either as my primary half court initiator but eye test tells me Barnes drives are more conducive to scoring.

Your eye test is probably catching transition opportunities, whereas the cameras track half court drives. Some of it is up for interpretation, for sure.

[bape_lovers]

The annual debate of starting pg/backup pg is back, Jose/tj Kyle/freddy IQ/Shead

[Son Goku 25]

Shead executes Darko’s offensive system better than IQ despite being significantly less talented than IQ. Expect Shead to close games over IQ more often moving forward.

Not unless IQ is still on the team. I'd be surprised if Darko shifts around his rotation maybe not until if he feels his job is at risk. I think he's a development coach at the end of the day and is learning on the job about the in game decision making which is fine. Would be great to see him be more adaptable and not stick to same script on a consistent basis.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Shead executes Darko’s offensive system better than IQ despite being significantly less talented than IQ. Expect Shead to close games over IQ more often moving forward.

Not unless IQ is still on the team. I'd be surprised if Darko shifts around his rotation maybe not until if he feels his job is at risk. I think he's a development coach at the end of the day and is learning on the job about the in game decision making which is fine. Would be great to see him be more adaptable and not stick to same script on a consistent basis.

Im not Darko's biggest fan, but haven't we been seeing these closing time adjustments lately?

I think he needs to make his most trusted lineup his most played lineup, coach for wins now and earn respect by working hard and being good at his job. I think he's trying to make the best of the pieces he has, and keep people happy. It's not about being as good or better than we expected, its about being as good as we possibly can to go as far as we can, imo. if the East is weaker and we look better as a result, that's not enough if we're leaving wins on the table. Why that matters is it matters in seeding and then matters in match ups. Once we make the playoffs again, no one is going to be happy just to be there anymore. It's going to be how do we advance, not get exposed in the post season. When two competent teams compete, the margin between wins and losses is small. Darko gets in his own way alot, but at least lately he's not letting the pre prepped plan produce a loss if he can help it.

[dhackett1565]

Walter is now -103 on the season.

Our next worse rotation guy is Ochai at -10.

Dick is +73....4th best on the team.

At some point isn't it clear that Walter is an issue and kills almost every lineup, regardless what he shoots from 3?

Don't care if it's Walter or Dick but we gotta get one of them outta here ASAP. They are never good together and to my memory, the only times either of them were good on a more consistent basis was when the other guy was a non-factor. IMO only thing they do is get in each other's way. Like today in 4th quarter, Dick's having a good game and we are in key stretch in the 4th, there's no viable reason to have Walter switched into the game. But even when one guy's playing real well, Darko's gotta put the other guy in there for obligatory 2 minutes not within flow of anything.

Just pick a guy and get the other guy out. Not like we don't have 3~4 other backup SG's to step in.

Agreed.

It's just so odd how their plus/minus is so different given Walter has a better 3pt%.

Gradey somehow wins his minutes when not with Walter. Walter seems to somehow always lose his regardless who he plays with.

This is simply not true.

Walter's most used lineup this year is him in for RJ with the starters, for 75 minutes, where they have a +5.1 net rating (basically identical to their +5 net rating with RJ).

His other most-used lineups are various bench units with 30 or fewer minutes played, some of which play well and some of which get caved in. There's not much pattern to it (for example the theory that JaKobe and Dick can't play together - there's a +1 net rating, -51 net rating, and +30 net rating lineup with the two of them in that list before we get to really small sub-15 MP sample lineups).

I think it's just symptomatic of a team that has missed a key guy or two for big stretches of the year, and whose rotations have been a bit of a mess for much of that time as a result, and the guy they've used most to stop up the gaps seeing bad results in some of those looks before they figure out it doesn't work. While some other guys have been kept in more sheltered situations and helped them avoid the minuses stacking up. Really hard to draw a lot of info from raw plus minus right now.

Ochai, JaKobe and Gradey all grade out as ~ -2 EPM guys right now, and as noisy as EPM is halfway through a season I think that's about right. They've all struggled to one degree or another - but have been useful enough as depth pieces. The answer is likely to let them keep fighting it out until one of them actually separates from the pack, rather than try to drag some sort of conclusion from the rather scattered season thus far.

[Dennis 37]

We started the game playing IQ off ball and had Barnes running the point. Of course as usual Barnes was passive trying to score but the offense ran night and day better than it does with IQ.

The shots IQ took, you need him to take, but man he needs to be accurate. That’s his only skill.

"But, but, but, Scotties not a point guard," is what I'm told.

Barnes isn't a point guard though. He can in certain games especially against bad POA defensive team like Hawks but it won't work long term. He doesn't have the consistent burst on ball and he can't shoot 3s of the dribble. He also limits amount of pnr u can spam and he does not touch paint enough for a great pg. He is great in transition though and decent advantage passer in half court which puts him as an elite #2 playmaker/passer.

Lamelo with all his open gym bull and inefficiency is still a far superior offensive player at point guard for ex.

If we get an all-star level point guard, then of course, but against teams where it works let Barnes do the playmaking. IQ is high quality when off-ball.

[Reeko]

The annual debate of starting pg/backup pg is back, Jose/tj Kyle/freddy IQ/Shead

Kyle and Fred was never a debate. Not ever.

[MEDIC]

Shead executes Darko’s offensive system better than IQ despite being significantly less talented than IQ. Expect Shead to close games over IQ more often moving forward.

I think Shead gives us an idea of what direction we need to go. If we could find a Shead-like PG that has a more reliable 3 point shot (& preferrably more size), that's who you target as the future starting PG.

If that person happens to be Shead in a year or two.......even better.

[Got Nuffin]

"But, but, but, Scotties not a point guard," is what I'm told.

Barnes isn't a point guard though. He can in certain games especially against bad POA defensive team like Hawks but it won't work long term. He doesn't have the consistent burst on ball and he can't shoot 3s of the dribble. He also limits amount of pnr u can spam and he does not touch paint enough for a great pg. He is great in transition though and decent advantage passer in half court which puts him as an elite #2 playmaker/passer.

Lamelo with all his open gym bull and inefficiency is still a far superior offensive player at point guard for ex.

If we get an all-start level point guard, then of course, but against teams where it works let Barnes do the playmaking. IQ is high quality when off-ball.

Yeah, although Barnes is not a traditional point guard in most senses, he does make the best basketball decisions on the team and is mostly able to execute those decisions. So let him have the ball in his hands regardless.

I compare him to a Scottie Pippen type playmaker, where he would play what is closest to being called 'pg' on the team while relying on an offensive system to make up for some lack of a more traditional point guard skill set and get everyone into their shooting pockets. They also would play a small player usually off-ball similarly to the way we treat (or should be treating) IQ - who may have the skill set but makes much worse on-ball decisions.

[bape_lovers]

Raps4evrIsBack wrote:
VinBaker6 wrote:
I'm absolutely convinced FVV is better than Lowry at this point

Same here. Freddy is a two way player, and much smarter. His calming attitude is under rated.


Check these quotes then…

The annual debate of starting pg/backup pg is back, Jose/tj Kyle/freddy IQ/Shead

Kyle and Fred was never a debate. Not ever.

[Dexjackson]

The annual debate of starting pg/backup pg is back, Jose/tj Kyle/freddy IQ/Shead

Kyle and Fred was never a debate. Not ever.

That was my first thought when I read that. Wait did I miss something in all my years watching these two lol.

[Scizzup]

Barnes isn't a point guard though. He can in certain games especially against bad POA defensive team like Hawks but it won't work long term. He doesn't have the consistent burst on ball and he can't shoot 3s of the dribble. He also limits amount of pnr u can spam and he does not touch paint enough for a great pg. He is great in transition though and decent advantage passer in half court which puts him as an elite #2 playmaker/passer.

Lamelo with all his open gym bull and inefficiency is still a far superior offensive player at point guard for ex.

If we get an all-start level point guard, then of course, but against teams where it works let Barnes do the playmaking. IQ is high quality when off-ball.

Yeah, although Barnes is not a traditional point guard in most senses, he does make the best basketball decisions on the team and is mostly able to execute those decisions. So let him have the ball in his hands regardless.

I compare him to a Scottie Pippen type playmaker, where he would play what is closest to being called 'pg' on the team while relying on an offensive system to make up for some lack of a more traditional point guard skill set and get everyone into their shooting pockets. They also would play a small player usually off-ball similarly to the way we treat (or should be treating) IQ - who may have the skill set but makes much worse on-ball decisions.

He is not like Pippen though cause Pippen was a better half court creator and a much more impactful offensive player. You see how Deni plays? Deni/Jalen Johnson are more Pippen type of creators. I think the way Barnes plays is fine don't force him to roles he clearly wont' provide value in. Right now he provides surplus value on defense for his position and that is good with his transition playmaking and garbage man/opportunistic ish scoring.

[Got Nuffin]

If we get an all-start level point guard, then of course, but against teams where it works let Barnes do the playmaking. IQ is high quality when off-ball.

Yeah, although Barnes is not a traditional point guard in most senses, he does make the best basketball decisions on the team and is mostly able to execute those decisions. So let him have the ball in his hands regardless.

I compare him to a Scottie Pippen type playmaker, where he would play what is closest to being called 'pg' on the team while relying on an offensive system to make up for some lack of a more traditional point guard skill set and get everyone into their shooting pockets. They also would play a small player usually off-ball similarly to the way we treat (or should be treating) IQ - who may have the skill set but makes much worse on-ball decisions.

He is not like Pippen though cause Pippen was a better half court creator and a much more impactful offensive player. You see how Deni plays? Deni/Jalen Johnson are more Pippen type of creators. I think the way Barnes plays is fine don't force him to roles he clearly wont' provide value in. Right now he provides surplus value on defense for his position and that is good with his transition playmaking and garbage man/opportunistic ish scoring.

You're basically saying Pippen was the better player, which is obvious. He's top 50 all time. If you watch the Bulls of that era however, Pippen would essentially set up the play and then let Jordan iso at the top of the key (with triangle running around him) or hand it to big Luc (when he was on the team) and that would initiate the offence, getting everyone to run through their favourite 'kill' spots. Basically what I am saying is that without a pure pg it's good to run a motion offence where whether the pg can self create in all situations or not does not hamper the team too much.

And that's how, to an extent, we are and should be using Barnes.

[sidsid]

We started the game playing IQ off ball and had Barnes running the point. Of course as usual Barnes was passive trying to score but the offense ran night and day better than it does with IQ.

The shots IQ took, you need him to take, but man he needs to be accurate. That’s his only skill.

"But, but, but, Scotties not a point guard," is what I'm told.

He can play PG and center when needed, but you would still rather have a dedicated PG and center., especially if they're at an allstar level.

You want capable enough ball handling, and more importantly, decision making across the lineup if possible. Position doesn't matter.

Both IQ and Barnes PNR/initiating should mainly be secondary action as it isn't their main strength.

You want Barnes (and CMB) as the decision maker and IQ as the (3pt) finisher. You get this dynamic a lot more through a DHO offense where the holder gets to read the play more than focusing on dribbling creation.

The issue with passivity is less of a concern as your playmakers are touching the ball a lot more.

Our roster is just suited more to this at the moment anyway. If you put the top 5 of "guys who know how to pass" on this team, 3 of them would be our rotation bigs, not most of the guards.