Solution without a PF?
Moderators: bwgood77, Qwigglez, lilfishi22
Solution without a PF?
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 115
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 28, 2009
Solution without a PF?
I really doubt the FO is going to make any more changes, especially find a good PF.
That being said, this is where our roster stands...
PG- Nash, Dragic
SG- Carter, Dudley
SF- Hill, Pietris, Childress
PF- Frye, Warrick
C- Lopez Gortat
That's a pretty deep team, and clearly small. What are the solutions? Take advantage of the depth.
I think we need to go back to an SSOL offense. Yes, with Alvin's new defense, our players will be more tired and stressed and won't be able to run the SSOL offense efficiently, but that's why we should take advantage of our roster depth.
We can start the game, and start running from there, and change the players within every 5-6 min or so. That way, everyone plays, we run, have SSOL offense, tough defense, everyone has energy, everyone is having fun.
-Start the game with Nash, Carter, Hill, Frye, Lopez. Go into an SSOL system, then change the rotation between the 6-8 min. mark. Then you put in Dragic, Dudley, Pietris, Warrick, and Gortat to finish out the quarter. And based on who is doing well and what not, you can put in Childress for someone (most likely Dudley, Pietris or even Warrick) then adjust positions.
-Every player is very capable of playing in this system. This system requires being scrappy on defense, being able to shoot threes, cut to the basket, or be efficient in the pick-n-roll. Let's see who we have for that...
-Nash is obviously great with all of this except the defensive stand-point.
-Dragic is scrappy on defense and can get hot when he gets it going.
-Carter can shoot threes, cut to the basket, and often be efficient in a pick-n-pop.
-Dudley is a smart player n scrappy defender. He hustles and can obviously knock down threes.
-Hill is another scrappy defender, can occasionally hit the three, and can cut to the basket.
-Pietris is ANOTHER scrappy defender, good 3point shooter.
-Childress is a good cutter and slasher, hustles and can grab the loose ball, and is a decent defender.
-Frye is a key part of our system. Shoots 3's, scrappy and can grab a few rebounds, and runs.
-Warrick can set a good pick, and definitely finish with authority at the rim.
-Lopez... idk much of what he can do in this system..
-Gortat can score around the rim, is effective in the pick-n-roll, and plays good defense.
What we accomplish with this type of system:
Offense-
-Back to the fun-watching system.
-Out-running other teams that are bigger
-Tiring out the opponent's players and forcing them to go to their bench
-implementing our old system of fast-pace scoring and high efficient shots
-our chemistry gets back together and the team has fun.
Defense
-We can trap, and hustle, because our rotations will give our players rest
-Allows us to play tougher defense.
Tell me what you think.
That being said, this is where our roster stands...
PG- Nash, Dragic
SG- Carter, Dudley
SF- Hill, Pietris, Childress
PF- Frye, Warrick
C- Lopez Gortat
That's a pretty deep team, and clearly small. What are the solutions? Take advantage of the depth.
I think we need to go back to an SSOL offense. Yes, with Alvin's new defense, our players will be more tired and stressed and won't be able to run the SSOL offense efficiently, but that's why we should take advantage of our roster depth.
We can start the game, and start running from there, and change the players within every 5-6 min or so. That way, everyone plays, we run, have SSOL offense, tough defense, everyone has energy, everyone is having fun.
-Start the game with Nash, Carter, Hill, Frye, Lopez. Go into an SSOL system, then change the rotation between the 6-8 min. mark. Then you put in Dragic, Dudley, Pietris, Warrick, and Gortat to finish out the quarter. And based on who is doing well and what not, you can put in Childress for someone (most likely Dudley, Pietris or even Warrick) then adjust positions.
-Every player is very capable of playing in this system. This system requires being scrappy on defense, being able to shoot threes, cut to the basket, or be efficient in the pick-n-roll. Let's see who we have for that...
-Nash is obviously great with all of this except the defensive stand-point.
-Dragic is scrappy on defense and can get hot when he gets it going.
-Carter can shoot threes, cut to the basket, and often be efficient in a pick-n-pop.
-Dudley is a smart player n scrappy defender. He hustles and can obviously knock down threes.
-Hill is another scrappy defender, can occasionally hit the three, and can cut to the basket.
-Pietris is ANOTHER scrappy defender, good 3point shooter.
-Childress is a good cutter and slasher, hustles and can grab the loose ball, and is a decent defender.
-Frye is a key part of our system. Shoots 3's, scrappy and can grab a few rebounds, and runs.
-Warrick can set a good pick, and definitely finish with authority at the rim.
-Lopez... idk much of what he can do in this system..
-Gortat can score around the rim, is effective in the pick-n-roll, and plays good defense.
What we accomplish with this type of system:
Offense-
-Back to the fun-watching system.
-Out-running other teams that are bigger
-Tiring out the opponent's players and forcing them to go to their bench
-implementing our old system of fast-pace scoring and high efficient shots
-our chemistry gets back together and the team has fun.
Defense
-We can trap, and hustle, because our rotations will give our players rest
-Allows us to play tougher defense.
Tell me what you think.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,927
- And1: 0
- Joined: May 25, 2007
Re: Solution without a PF?
I think we better find a brute PF who can get it done on both ends.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- No Sham, More Cam
- Posts: 17,891
- And1: 5,437
- Joined: Jun 27, 2009
- Location: Beyond the Sun
Re: Solution without a PF?
I say we develop Lawal and see what we have there. Get Warrick a defensive coach and send him to the gym. Tell Frye (and MP) that he can't shoot a three until he hits two, two pointers. Have either Hill or Nash on the floor at all times. And when we are frickin winning, get offense only players out of the game, well except for Nash. 

Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 115
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 28, 2009
Re: Solution without a PF?
neither of those address what i posted, but thanks i guess
Re: Solution without a PF?
- lilfishi22
- Forum Mod - Suns
- Posts: 36,206
- And1: 24,563
- Joined: Oct 16, 2007
- Location: Australia
Re: Solution without a PF?
It isn't a solution unless we get our defense better. Right now, even while pushing SSOL to the limits, we're giving up more points to the other team than we are putting up. Basketball is a simple game, score more than the other team and that's what SSOL achieved. But SSOL nor last season's Gentry's SSOL, was ever this bad defensively.
Offensively we just need some time to develop chemistry with this new group and we need to figure out something defensively.
Offensively we just need some time to develop chemistry with this new group and we need to figure out something defensively.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Suns Forum Training Specialist
- Posts: 10,032
- And1: 4,004
- Joined: May 23, 2009
Re: Solution without a PF?
Blow it all up...We suck....End of story!
Re: Solution without a PF?
- aIvin adams
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,042
- And1: 1,977
- Joined: Jun 24, 2009
-
Re: Solution without a PF?
start lopez as a 4 on offense. play small ball only if there's a 4/5 combo that lopez/GORTAT THE INDEFATIGIBLE can't guard. which won't be many, if any
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,718
- And1: 687
- Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Re: Solution without a PF?
2 thoughts....I really think our offense is a huge part of the problem right now. PHX has consistently been in the far bottom of defensive rankings for the past 6 years, but our offense has been sputtering terribly over the last 3 weeks. We have been very inconsistent offensively. PHX's tradition is to outscore. We have always had poor defense, but when you add poor offense to that, it makes things very scary. I have seen real signs that our defense will improve, we have to get our offense back into shape.
2nd thought. We need to explore a twin towers defensive zone and offensive set with Lopez and Gortat. Surround them with Pietrus, Carter and Nash. We will simply have too much height inside for many teams to not collapse on our big guys, which will leave our shooters open. Teams may need to zone against us in that case. If the defense overplays, Carter, Nash and Pietrus can all get to the bucket on their own, or stop short and hit a midrange. Defensively alternate between a 3-2 match-up zone with Nash and Carter on the sides and Pietrus at the top, to keep their bigs out of the paint and give us better spacing for getting our own boards, and man-to-man defense.
2nd thought. We need to explore a twin towers defensive zone and offensive set with Lopez and Gortat. Surround them with Pietrus, Carter and Nash. We will simply have too much height inside for many teams to not collapse on our big guys, which will leave our shooters open. Teams may need to zone against us in that case. If the defense overplays, Carter, Nash and Pietrus can all get to the bucket on their own, or stop short and hit a midrange. Defensively alternate between a 3-2 match-up zone with Nash and Carter on the sides and Pietrus at the top, to keep their bigs out of the paint and give us better spacing for getting our own boards, and man-to-man defense.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,718
- And1: 687
- Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Re: Solution without a PF?
AA, I agree, though I would think of Gortat as the 4 and Lopez the 5. Either way you have a primary recipient for the PNR and a secondary target, or outside shooting alternates.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 745
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 28, 2010
Re: Solution without a PF?
sunsfan3 wrote:I really doubt the FO is going to make any more changes, especially find a good PF.
That being said, this is where our roster stands...
PG- Nash, Dragic
SG- Carter, Dudley
SF- Hill, Pietris, Childress
PF- Frye, Warrick
C- Lopez Gortat
That's a pretty deep team, and clearly small. What are the solutions? Take advantage of the depth.
I think we need to go back to an SSOL offense. Yes, with Alvin's new defense, our players will be more tired and stressed and won't be able to run the SSOL offense efficiently, but that's why we should take advantage of our roster depth.
We can start the game, and start running from there, and change the players within every 5-6 min or so. That way, everyone plays, we run, have SSOL offense, tough defense, everyone has energy, everyone is having fun.
-Start the game with Nash, Carter, Hill, Frye, Lopez. Go into an SSOL system, then change the rotation between the 6-8 min. mark. Then you put in Dragic, Dudley, Pietris, Warrick, and Gortat to finish out the quarter. And based on who is doing well and what not, you can put in Childress for someone (most likely Dudley, Pietris or even Warrick) then adjust positions.
-Every player is very capable of playing in this system. This system requires being scrappy on defense, being able to shoot threes, cut to the basket, or be efficient in the pick-n-roll. Let's see who we have for that...
-Nash is obviously great with all of this except the defensive stand-point.
-Dragic is scrappy on defense and can get hot when he gets it going.
-Carter can shoot threes, cut to the basket, and often be efficient in a pick-n-pop.
-Dudley is a smart player n scrappy defender. He hustles and can obviously knock down threes.
-Hill is another scrappy defender, can occasionally hit the three, and can cut to the basket.
-Pietris is ANOTHER scrappy defender, good 3point shooter.
-Childress is a good cutter and slasher, hustles and can grab the loose ball, and is a decent defender.
-Frye is a key part of our system. Shoots 3's, scrappy and can grab a few rebounds, and runs.
-Warrick can set a good pick, and definitely finish with authority at the rim.
-Lopez... idk much of what he can do in this system..
-Gortat can score around the rim, is effective in the pick-n-roll, and plays good defense.
What we accomplish with this type of system:
Offense-
-Back to the fun-watching system.
-Out-running other teams that are bigger
-Tiring out the opponent's players and forcing them to go to their bench
-implementing our old system of fast-pace scoring and high efficient shots
-our chemistry gets back together and the team has fun.
Defense
-We can trap, and hustle, because our rotations will give our players rest
-Allows us to play tougher defense.
Tell me what you think.
This idea has been suggested on here before and not only is it a good suggestion, it's really the ONLY solution for fixing the Suns problems as they are currently built. The reason is really simple. Look at the Suns strengths. They have three as I see it.
1) Steve Nash
2) Very good three point shooters (excellent prior to the trade)
3) Inordinate depth with relatively small difference between first and second units.
That's largely it unless you start picking at nits. Of these three Steve Nash is far and away the Suns greatest strength. No team in the NBA relies on their leader more than the Suns. And Nash operates best in a wide open system. The one you propose is obviously such a system but don't look for people here to embrace your thinking too much. And it certainly doesn't seem to be the focus of the coaching staff.
I'll add a few points to your thoughts. Firstly, the Suns are getting killed on the offensive glass. One of the reasons is because they don't look to outlet the ball quickly like they used to. Teams can now send players to the offensive glass with little fear of getting beat at the opposite end. Secondly, the Suns need to shoot more threes because they have an edge doing so and it would open up the middle more for whatever drives they get. Finally, any trade they make (presumably for a PF) must be for a player who is complementary to this system. Dirk or Luis Scola would be perfect. I'm sure we're not getting Dirk and I'd have a hard time believing Houston would let Scola go. If the Suns can't get a player like this then they should just stick with what they have.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 745
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 28, 2010
Re: Solution without a PF?
aIvin adams wrote:start lopez as a 4 on offense. play small ball only if there's a 4/5 combo that lopez/GORTAT THE INDEFATIGIBLE can't guard. which won't be many, if any
Ones like Blake Griffin/anybody or DeMarcus Cousins/anybody? Yeh, we'd eat those guys up.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 745
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 28, 2010
Re: Solution without a PF?
SideSwipe wrote:
2nd thought. We need to explore a twin towers defensive zone and offensive set with Lopez and Gortat. Surround them with Pietrus, Carter and Nash. We will simply have too much height inside for many teams to not collapse on our big guys, which will leave our shooters open. Teams may need to zone against us in that case. If the defense overplays, Carter, Nash and Pietrus can all get to the bucket on their own, or stop short and hit a midrange. Defensively alternate between a 3-2 match-up zone with Nash and Carter on the sides and Pietrus at the top, to keep their bigs out of the paint and give us better spacing for getting our own boards, and man-to-man defense.
Twins towers don't really work in an open system They clog up the middle too much and provide little defensive advantage. The Suns need to run and make other teams play their style, not vice versa.
Re: Solution without a PF?
- TheMoochinator
- Senior
- Posts: 674
- And1: 22
- Joined: May 30, 2006
Re: Solution without a PF?
Not to be a debbie downer but I'm extremely skeptical about a "twin towers" starting lineup working.
When has a twin towers lineup with two big center bodies really ever worked in the NBA? (Aside from a hall of fame duo such as Duncan/Robinson and Olajuwon/Sampson)
I think it would just further clog the lane and you would see us jacking up more threes.
Neither Gortat nor Lopez really have a reliable mid-range jumper yet.
When has a twin towers lineup with two big center bodies really ever worked in the NBA? (Aside from a hall of fame duo such as Duncan/Robinson and Olajuwon/Sampson)
I think it would just further clog the lane and you would see us jacking up more threes.
Neither Gortat nor Lopez really have a reliable mid-range jumper yet.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,718
- And1: 687
- Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Re: Solution without a PF?
Sun and Mooch, our "system" is based on fast break points (which we haven't been getting), outside shooting and pick and roll offense. What we have been failing on in is defense. Our man-to-man defense has proven to be ineffective to this point. The only place where twin towers would be on top of each other is in the deep post where Shaq and Amare (occasionally) operated, but is not where Lopez or Gortat operate. They are more elbow, face-up big men.
Where do you think twin towers would fail? Offensively? Defensively? because the way I see it our "system" isn't working right now
Other examples of twin towers that have had some success recently:
Gasol/ Bynum- the most clear recent example
Garnett/ Perkins
Nowitzki/ Chandler
Howard/ Gortat (before the trade, they sometimes shared the court)
Camby/ Nene (from 3 years ago)
I am not under the illusion that our 2 are as good as any of the ones listed above, but the system can work. Three sets above had 2 clear shot-blockers and none of those duo's has a guy under 6'11" That list includes 2 titles, 1 Eastern Conference Champion, 1 Western Conference Semi-finalist
Where do you think twin towers would fail? Offensively? Defensively? because the way I see it our "system" isn't working right now
Other examples of twin towers that have had some success recently:
Gasol/ Bynum- the most clear recent example
Garnett/ Perkins
Nowitzki/ Chandler
Howard/ Gortat (before the trade, they sometimes shared the court)
Camby/ Nene (from 3 years ago)
I am not under the illusion that our 2 are as good as any of the ones listed above, but the system can work. Three sets above had 2 clear shot-blockers and none of those duo's has a guy under 6'11" That list includes 2 titles, 1 Eastern Conference Champion, 1 Western Conference Semi-finalist
Re: Solution without a PF?
- Stix
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,337
- And1: 2,655
- Joined: Jul 26, 2007
- Location: Phoenix
-
Re: Solution without a PF?
SideSwipe wrote:Sun and Mooch, our "system" is based on fast break points (which we haven't been getting), outside shooting and pick and roll offense. What we have been failing on in is defense. Our man-to-man defense has proven to be ineffective to this point. The only place where twin towers would be on top of each other is in the deep post where Shaq and Amare (occasionally) operated, but is not where Lopez or Gortat operate. They are more elbow, face-up big men.
Where do you think twin towers would fail? Offensively? Defensively? because the way I see it our "system" isn't working right now
Other examples of twin towers that have had some success recently:
Gasol/ Bynum- the most clear recent example
Garnett/ Perkins
Nowitzki/ Chandler
Howard/ Gortat (before the trade, they sometimes shared the court)
Camby/ Nene (from 3 years ago)
I am not under the illusion that our 2 are as good as any of the ones listed above, but the system can work. Three sets above had 2 clear shot-blockers and none of those duo's has a guy under 6'11" That list includes 2 titles, 1 Eastern Conference Champion, 1 Western Conference Semi-finalist
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,718
- And1: 687
- Joined: Aug 20, 2007
Re: Solution without a PF?
My Bad on Perk, but he was clearly a C in the system, so the argument still remains....
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- No Sham, More Cam
- Posts: 17,891
- And1: 5,437
- Joined: Jun 27, 2009
- Location: Beyond the Sun
Re: Solution without a PF?
Are we really suggesting two guys that really don't have much range outside of ten feet, not very good rebounders, and one who hasn't been the same since injury should start together?
Now if one of them could actually grab at least eight boards per game, I could see it. But Frye is grabbing the same amount of rebounds as Gortat in only one extra minute.
To top it off, we have to actually grab a rebound before we can fast break, and we have traded away our fastest players and our best finishers, but we want to start two slower bigs? Is seven feet that much better than 6'11"? Now I agree that Frye takes too many threes, but it is what Nash needs to spreed the floor. I have an idea, lets take away everything that Nash loves about our system so he demands a trade just so we can get possibly one extra rebound.


To top it off, we have to actually grab a rebound before we can fast break, and we have traded away our fastest players and our best finishers, but we want to start two slower bigs? Is seven feet that much better than 6'11"? Now I agree that Frye takes too many threes, but it is what Nash needs to spreed the floor. I have an idea, lets take away everything that Nash loves about our system so he demands a trade just so we can get possibly one extra rebound.



Re: Solution without a PF?
- lilfishi22
- Forum Mod - Suns
- Posts: 36,206
- And1: 24,563
- Joined: Oct 16, 2007
- Location: Australia
Re: Solution without a PF?
I was going to say what RDG just did. Gortat/Lopez wouldn't work in our system because there just isn't enough spacing and neither are good enough mid-range shooters to spread the floor.
Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- No Sham, More Cam
- Posts: 17,891
- And1: 5,437
- Joined: Jun 27, 2009
- Location: Beyond the Sun
Re: Solution without a PF?
lilfishi22 wrote:I was going to say what RDG just did. Gortat/Lopez wouldn't work in our system because there just isn't enough spacing and neither are good enough mid-range shooters to spread the floor.
Yep, I just don't see the benefit. Plus Frye's numbers coming off the bench are lower in every category. Taking him out of the starting lineup, to put a guy one inch taller, who isn't a better rebounder, doesn't seem right.
Unless if our goal is to tank it, then maybe that would be the best way to go about it. But if we are just trying things for sh*ts and giggles, why not start Lawal?

Re: Solution without a PF?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,268
- And1: 10,085
- Joined: Nov 07, 2006
Re: Solution without a PF?
I do not think there is a solution with the current personnel.
We do not have the dynamic SF/PF player that caused mismatch havoc as did Marion, along with the explosive, quick C in Stat. We ran because we were decidedly faster than most teams.
Nor do we have strong and talented enough bigmen to be a Twin Tower type team. We might be able to match up with that against a few teams, but I think it creates more of a disadvantage mismatch for us to adopt full time. Our bigs are just too limited in what they each can do.
To me, this team has been constructed to be reconstructed. I recall one stated philosophy of the front office was to acquire positive assets. We have done that to a certain extent, and really have positioned ourselves to make some more roster adjustments.
I think the FO expected us to remain playoff competitive until we could structure another deal in Feb, be it Vince and/or another surplus player. We do have some assets that will be attractive. We have a couple of expendable wings in JChill and Pietrus. A healthy expiring in Vince. And a couple draft picks. and even someone may want Lopez.
The fly in soup is we are on the cusp of sucking hard enough to jeopardize a playoff appearance....
There is no solution other than acquiring a PF.
We do not have the dynamic SF/PF player that caused mismatch havoc as did Marion, along with the explosive, quick C in Stat. We ran because we were decidedly faster than most teams.
Nor do we have strong and talented enough bigmen to be a Twin Tower type team. We might be able to match up with that against a few teams, but I think it creates more of a disadvantage mismatch for us to adopt full time. Our bigs are just too limited in what they each can do.
To me, this team has been constructed to be reconstructed. I recall one stated philosophy of the front office was to acquire positive assets. We have done that to a certain extent, and really have positioned ourselves to make some more roster adjustments.
I think the FO expected us to remain playoff competitive until we could structure another deal in Feb, be it Vince and/or another surplus player. We do have some assets that will be attractive. We have a couple of expendable wings in JChill and Pietrus. A healthy expiring in Vince. And a couple draft picks. and even someone may want Lopez.
The fly in soup is we are on the cusp of sucking hard enough to jeopardize a playoff appearance....
There is no solution other than acquiring a PF.
What ? Me Worry ?