I don't want to say I told you so but...

[Walt Cronkite]

I get the impression you don't like me because you write so condescendingly towards me. "Try to follow closely", "Get that? It's real simple". Your tone has changed now and it's much more respectful. Thanks for this change, let's leave it like that.

I mentioned your "start a 2 guard at the 2" paragraph because it seemed out of nowhere to me in a thread about Boykins taking minutes away from McMinus. Now I get why you brought that up I ask that you go check out who the main contributor to the "Wanted: One Lock Down Defender" thread was. I'll give you a hint, but it wasn't the OP and it wasn't you.

Bobby Jones is a FA. Cut Harrington and sign him, works for me. Sign him over Boykins would've been an acceptable more for me as well. Anyway, I totally get that we have a very limited number of good defenders, although I'd add Felton and Mohammed to your list of 2, Dudley is above average which is impressive for a rook.

I get that you don't like Vincent, I'm totally indifferent to him. I don't personally think it's productive to get rid of him at this point in the season, but if we cut him before the came I couldn't care less. What I don't get is how I've written a lot about what I think Boykins means to the Bobcats in this thread and you keep asking things that I'm covering.

Try to follow closely, taking notes is acceptable, I'm going to go pretty quick (doesn't feel so great, huh?):

I believe, based on Vincent's 4-on-1 comment and the news we have of Vincent himself contacting Boykins as direct examples, that Sam Vincent doesn't want to play McInnis for as much as he does.

I think (based on his comments in the preseason) he wants to play an uptempo offense where Felton is the primary ball handler but due to our lack of depth he had to adjust. I believe that he thought McInnis could spell Felton for 15 minutes a game so Felton can be as fresh as possible, but he was giving Mcinnis too much credit.

Therefore, he scrapped this up tempo plan almost entirely. We still pushed the tempo in spurts, but in order to win games SV felt he had to start McInnis so Felton could finish the game fresh at the point. Look at our 5 man lineups with 100 minutes or more.

-There is the starting lineup that everyone (read:ALL OF US) hates (although it has a 50% win percentage, I think most of us would say that it's in spite of McInnis, ya?)

-There is the lineup you suggest starting (Felton/Richardson/Wallace/Okafor/Mohammed) which doesn't have as good of a win %, but since the +/- is so much better, you can make a point that with a larger sample size this would improve.

-Finally, there are the Felton/Carroll/Richardson/Wallace/ 1 of Okafor/Mohammed lineups. I like these the best because I think both Mohammed and Okafor are best at the 5, but I see your point with Mohammed playing the 4 on offense b/c of the high-low option he and Okafor present then.

BTW...why do people think Boykins would limit McInnis' minutes when he does exactly what Vincent wants Felton to do...which is be agressive looking for his own offense? Are we going with 2 of those at the same time and not worrying about distribution? Maybe he's planning on using Felton more at the one assuming Boykins can take up the scoring slack?

I believe that 3 pgs instead of 2 allows for Felton to start at the point (but not with Boykins), with one of Carroll/Mohammed/Dudley--depending on the matchups.

I think that Boykins is more similar to Felts than McInnis is. Ironically, our Boykins/Felton bashing on the 1st page of this thread suggests as much. Boykins is a reserve, no mistake about that... but Boykins allows for the Cats to continue doing what we do best when Felton is off of the floor.

Not consistently over much more than a game or two. None of our guys have shown that they can consistently go out and put up 25 points regardless of who the other team throws at them (see Artest/Jackson for the latest examples). But even that's not enough; since our defense is so bad we need at least THREE players scoring 20+ points as well good bench scoring...which we seldom get anymore. Odds are we won't, but the one thing we can get better at is DEFENSE. We won't do that however if all we look at adding is more sporadic scoring.

Read my next paragraph and I think you would've gotten the point of the one that you quoted. Everyone that we have started, except McInnis has shown an ability to score. They haven't been able to show it consistently because McInnis has consistently been there to negate their efforts. Think back to that guy "The Bird"'s posts about how Carroll or anyone besides McInnis on the floor makes us more efficient on offense because there is better spacing because the defense can't completely ignore one of the players (not entirely true, McInnis is a +50% shooter from the right elbow, but I think that's a rather limited player and defenses know this so they leave him free to beat them).

I know we could use a lockdown guy, but based on the lineups I mentioned in the point about the +/-, I think when McInnis is off of the court we are able to play good enough defense, in part because all 5 players from the other team have to work on defense when we have the rock!

[W_HAMILTON]

Again, maybe it's a two-day stroke and I'm not understanding everyone...but is this basically Walt defending Boykins, and everyone else criticizing the move?

In which case, I have to ask in general:

(1) Is Raymond Felton the only PG in the world you like? For some of you, I already know the answer.

(2) If you've made one post bitching about McInnis, please do not complain about the team adding Boykins. You've forgone that right.

(3) Why the hell is Boykins an issue one way or the other, after ONE GAME with us?

Of course defense matters, but we scored about 27 points in 18 minutes against a team last night that ain't exactly known for their defense. That's poor offense; actually atrocious offense, all things considered. A specialist "lockdown" defender would have done what? Helped the scoreboard read 27-43 instead of 27-53?

[W_HAMILTON]

Another "I" thread ...

PS - heh.

[spectre_]

Wow, the 5'5 chucker has a better career FG, 3Pt AND FT %s than the 6'1 chucker!?!?!?!

In 15 less career minutes the 6'1 chucker only gets an additional 3 assists than the 5'5 chucker!? HOLY ****, I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW DRASTICALLY WE JUST IMPROVED OUR BENCH UNTIL NOW, THANK'S SPECTRE!!!

It seemed to me that this post set the tone. I guess you took my "chucker" comment to be in some way a defense for Felton when it had nothing to do with that. Well, the "defense" part was right anyway.

But no worries, I like you just fine.

They haven't been able to show it consistently because McInnis has consistently been there to negate their efforts.

We agree! Not only because of what he does or doesn't do (which is a helluva lot) but the repercussions throughout the lineup. It puts a little above average 6' defender on (usually) a well above average offensive player who's got a 6" or better height advantage.

I believe that 3 pgs instead of 2 allows for Felton to start at the point (but not with Boykins), with one of Carroll/Mohammed/Dudley--depending on the matchups.

Maybe your thought process will play out, but nothing has led me to believe that Vincent feels comfortable going with anything but a 2 pg lineup for most of the game. If he was inclined to ultimately go with anything but that he'd at least went with the same lineups you suggest for half a game or so. He hasn't. Vincent also has shown NO ability to adjust lineups due to what the other team is running with. Even when he does have a flash like in the SAC game he seems compelled to fall back in with the 2 pgs.

If anything, I'm thinking that bringing Boykins in gives Vincent the ability to play 2 pgs even more. Hopefully you're right and I'm not. Regardless we still suck on defense along the perimeter and we don't seem inclined to address that at all.

I'd be more of an advocate for Hammer to start if the boy's D didn't suck so bad. He gets beat a lot and then compounds the error by usually fouling on a made shot.

[Walt Cronkite]

Okay, great post for some resolution as far as I'm concerned.

I completely agree that we've seen little by Vincent to give too much credit to my theory at this point. We have 10 games left in February which will put us at 57 games played. If we're still playing McInnis for 25-30 minutes, I will 100% support the "Fire Vincent" party because he will be the biggest problem for sure.

[spectre_]

Of course defense matters, but we scored about 27 points in 18 minutes against a team last night that ain't exactly known for their defense. That's poor offense; actually atrocious offense, all things considered. A specialist "lockdown" defender would have done what? Helped the scoreboard read 27-43 instead of 27-53?

Just like a "Boykins on fire" would have overcome their starters shooting over 60% from the field?

It's not about just last night. As Walt said we have guys who can score but we're pretty low on good defenders. We rank 28th*** in opponent's FG% and I guess I see that as a problem. If it was me I'd have covered that first.

Okay, great post for some resolution as far as I'm concerned.

Sounds good to me. I hope it all works out and Boykins becomes a steal. I will say he did a good job on one play staying in front of Monta...and that's no mean feat as he's about as fast as they come. I didn't expect a lot from him last night, so no one should assume that had any bearing.

***Edit: 27th actually...was looking at the wrong season.

[W_HAMILTON]

No, it's just that we aren't fine-tuning our team for a championship run, and adding a niche "lockdown" defensive specialist shouldn't be a top priority. Where is he going to get minutes? If you make room for him by moving Felton to PG and putting our "defensive specialist" in at SG, that means you are still playing Wallace at PF and people have been complaining about that being a defensive mismatch. If you let everyone play their regular positions, that means there aren't that many minutes to go around. Wallace/Richardson/Felton will get around 35mpg, which leaves 13x3 = 39 minutes. Carroll will still get at least 15-20, so that leaves 19 minutes. So, unless that "defensive specialist" can play PG, or unless you want to banish Carroll to "bad contract bench player that never plays," where are you going to find enough minutes for a "defensive specialist" to REALLY matter?

If we were fine-tuning the roster, sure, go get one. But we have some serious problems that need to be addressed before that. All these little moves proposed mean little when we have huge issues, like who is going to run our team and get the most from our players on offense. Whether the scores are in the 100's or in the 80's, if you can't execute on the offensive end down the stretch, you aren't going to win regardless. We need to be able to do that, and we need a competent PG to do that.

Boykins probably isn't that PG, but beggers can't be choosers.

[vexco]

drama queens





let's see how it works out before you all commit suicide over it

[W_HAMILTON]

-= original quote snipped =-
As Walt said we have guys who can score but we're pretty low on good defenders.

I agree, which makes it even more pitiful that we went around two months are one of the worst offenses in the league, and even more pitiful that we scored 27 points through about 1 1/2 quarters last night. Would a defensive specialist prevented all of that?

Hell, some of our defensive problems are the RESULT of having to play guys out of position to artificially create an offensively-capable team (playing Wallace at PF, having to play two PGs at once, etc).

[Walt Cronkite]

I have to think we're going to address a roster issue or two by the tdl. I really don't understand why we'd keep "players" like Othella around otherwise.

Anyway, here's hoping we get a lockdown defender.

[vexco]

we can hope we make a move or two, at least

[BigSlam]

It's going to be tough to make a move with our two most tradable assets on the shelf and not a lot of cap room to work with.

[Walt Cronkite]

No, it's just that we aren't fine-tuning our team for a championship run, and adding a niche "lockdown" defensive specialist shouldn't be a top priority. Where is he going to get minutes? If you make room for him by moving Felton to PG and putting our "defensive specialist" in at SG, that means you are still playing Wallace at PF and people have been complaining about that being a defensive mismatch. If you let everyone play their regular positions, that means there aren't that many minutes to go around. Wallace/Richardson/Felton will get around 35mpg, which leaves 13x3 = 39 minutes. Carroll will still get at least 15-20, so that leaves 19 minutes. So, unless that "defensive specialist" can play PG, or unless you want to banish Carroll to "bad contract bench player that never plays," where are you going to find enough minutes for a "defensive specialist" to REALLY matter?

If we were fine-tuning the roster, sure, go get one. But we have some serious problems that need to be addressed before that. All these little moves proposed mean little when we have huge issues, like who is going to run our team and get the most from our players on offense. Whether the scores are in the 100's or in the 80's, if you can't execute on the offensive end down the stretch, you aren't going to win regardless. We need to be able to do that, and we need a competent PG to do that.

Boykins probably isn't that PG, but beggers can't be choosers.

I think playing Wallace at the 4 is something we can get away with if we finally do the uptempo thing. So in games we can get away with that that frees an additional 48 minutes (grand total of 87). Backup PG takes 20, 67. Carroll takes at least 20, 47. I'd say we'd split that between a lockdown wing defender and Dudley/Hollins/Anderson type players and we'd be have a pretty good 10 man rotation.

Felton(35)/Jrich(35)/Carroll(20-25) or hypothetical wing player/Wallace(35)/Emeka(30ish, point being he and Mohammed spend 48 minutes playing C)

MINUTES USED: 173/240

Boykins or McInnis for...uhh... McInnis type situations(13)

Mohammed(18ish)

MINUTES USED: 204/240

Hypothetical wing defender/Dudley/Anderson/Hollins/Davidson can use up 36 minutes, right?

Especially since:

-we OUGHT to play Okafor/Mohammed together for 5 minutes or so a game (Mohammed currently plays 23.7 mins and up above he's playing 18 so subtract 5 and we're at 31 minutes)

-Wallace, as the superstar, probably continues to play around 40 minutes, leaving 26 minutes between Hypothetical guy and the rag tag band of other pine-riders. Even if we cut back his mins to 38 or so, I think Felts/Rich/Wallace can handle a combined 110 mpg.

Bobby Jones, for example, got 15mpg in his 9 games with Memphis. So if we got a dleaguer, Jones, some ofther FA and played him like that we're down to 11 minutes for the super reserves, which is probably about as much as you would need for spot reserve play. If Carroll can handle 25 or we get a particularly good wing defender, that's down to 6!

[Walt Cronkite]

It's going to be tough to make a move with our two most tradable assets on the shelf and not a lot of cap room to work with.

Disagree b/c I think we trade expirings for something OR cut them outright to free up space with a waiver, anyway, see above

[Paydro70]

I agree 100% with everything Hamilton has posted. And Vexco as well.

The bottom line is that our team is bad on both offense AND defense... in fact we're exactly as bad at both, 21st in the league. McInnis is terrible on both offense AND defense, so picking up a player to take his minutes who is at least good at half the game is better than someone who's atrocious at both.

It's really not hyperbole to say that every single minute that McInnis does not play, we are a better team.

By the way, this is only tangential, but the Warriors are by no means a good defensive team, or even "okay." They're 25th, worse than us. We had trouble scoring against them, but I don't think we should make too much of that.

[Walt Cronkite]

Paydro70, if only you watched the game you would KNOW that GSW is a pretty good defensive team. They allow points in the paint and run such a high pace that they give up a lot of ppg in general.

Come'on, everyone knows Feel-o-meter>Stats

[spectre_]

Paydro70, if only you watched the game you would KNOW that GSW is a pretty good defensive team. They allow points in the paint and run such a high pace that they give up a lot of ppg in general.

Come'on, everyone knows Feel-o-meter>Stats

Man...here I was thinking you wanted to play nice.

I will give it to you about less McInnis tho; according to Bonnell he's going back with Felton at the 1. Too bad it took him so many games to realize we'd been playing 4 on 5.

[amcoolio]

We lost the GSW game and keep losing because of two reasons:

1. We don't have a coach who utilizes players correctly, because im pretty sure about any other coach in the league would have this squad of talent playing somewhat better, and

2. We don't have a PG with playmaking ability, Felton is more like a "second passer".

Are we as bad as our final record of 32-50 will indicate? No, we have the talent to turn it around next season, if some changes are made. But the Bobcats are in a situation similar to the Panthers - they seem too stubborn to change anything and as a result mediocrity will continue to happen.

Pretty much every team that has gone from bad to good in the last couple of years have made drastic changes except for Utah (who already had a good coach in Sloan and landed a great draft pick in Deron) and Atlanta (who are finally winning on sheer talent because they are loaded with it, but they could be so much better with a better coach).

[will]

Man this just blows.

I really thought this would be Felton's coming out party this season, but he still can't be 'that guy' at the point for the 'Cats.

Honestly, I haven't watched enough games to judge, so what the hell is up with Felton?

Has the team hurt his development at the point by pairing him with Knight in the past, and McInnis this season in the backcourt?

Or is he simply just not the guy for this team?

Frustration

[W_HAMILTON]

He had opportunities last season, he had opportunities this season (almost a month and a half of him being our sole starting PG, with everyone playing their "natural" positions), and he has always disappointed. He's getting yet another chance. Most of the guys around him are playing better individually than they were earlier in the season (Wallace/Richardson/Okafor). Even with a tougher schedule, if he continues to be the same player as always, and we miss the playoffs, or even worse, finish with a WORSE record than last year, that better be a wakeup call to management that he is not the PG to lead this team, and adding a starting PG in the offseason should be our #1 priority.

And amcoolio, I wouldn't say they are "too stubborn" to change anything. They added Mohammed, they went out and got Boykins; it's obvious they are trying to do things to improve this team.

Seeing as how much money they've spent DURING this season to help us, I'm pretty sure now that the Knight move was not a money-move, and they were willfully giving Felton a chance to prove himself as our starting PG, and up until now, he has failed. Watching Felton/McInnis for most of this season, I can't imagine the team won't address the PG situation in the offseason.

What apparently wasn't obvious the first few seasons, should be obvious to all now.