SVG: "Jennings is ready" But...

[BadMofoPimp]

Jennings didn't provide that winning needed spark last night . . .

You expected that day 1?

Not really. I figured it would take a good 5-10 games. But, just sayin because so many thought he would come back with a bang.

[Pistons888]

Jennings didn't provide that winning needed spark last night . . .

You expected that day 1?

Not really. I figured it would take a good 5-10 games. But, just sayin because so many thought he would come back with a bang.

Gotcha, understood.

I thought he was poised, didn't try to do too much and set some plays up nicely. Hopefully he continues to improve.

[ElectricMayhem]

This is the clearest signal I've seen that Jennings isn't in our long-term plans, even as a 6th man.

Oh yeah, I don’t think there is any doubt,” said Pistons coach Stan Van Gundy. “Brandon is coming back well off of the injury and he’s a guy who just absolutely loves to play, loves to be in the gym. He’s still young, he’s still 26. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’ll be a starting point guard in this league again.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2015/12/30/report-knicks-have-interest-in-brandon-jennings/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Van Gundy says there is no doubt he'll be a starting PG in the league again. He's not talking about after he spends his prime in Detroit as a 6th man. He's not talking about Jennings overtaking the guy we just paid a lot of money to be here a long time and is playing at a borderline All-Star level. He's talking about Jennings starting somewhere else - and sooner rather than later.

[Montanabadboy]

This is the clearest signal I've seen that Jennings isn't in our long-term plans, even as a 6th man.

Oh yeah, I don’t think there is any doubt,” said Pistons coach Stan Van Gundy. “Brandon is coming back well off of the injury and he’s a guy who just absolutely loves to play, loves to be in the gym. He’s still young, he’s still 26. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’ll be a starting point guard in this league again.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2015/12/30/report-knicks-have-interest-in-brandon-jennings/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Van Gundy says there is no doubt he'll be a starting PG in the league again. He's not talking about after he spends his prime in Detroit as a 6th man. He's not talking about Jennings overtaking the guy we just paid a lot of money to be here a long time and is playing at a borderline All-Star level. He's talking about Jennings starting somewhere else - and sooner rather than later.

If that's the case, then we need to trade him. There is nothing to be gained by holding onto him and making playoff push this year, where we can't seem to separate ourselves from the pack, only to lose him for nothing in the offseason. Hopefully, he starts playing well and drives up his trade value, before the deadline, and doesn't suffer any type of setback. I was really hoping we could resign him this offseason, but if it's not in the cards, then we need to get an asset for him going forward and not let him walk like Monroe.

[Todd3]

This is the clearest signal I've seen that Jennings isn't in our long-term plans, even as a 6th man.

Oh yeah, I don’t think there is any doubt,” said Pistons coach Stan Van Gundy. “Brandon is coming back well off of the injury and he’s a guy who just absolutely loves to play, loves to be in the gym. He’s still young, he’s still 26. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’ll be a starting point guard in this league again.

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2015/12/30/report-knicks-have-interest-in-brandon-jennings/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Van Gundy says there is no doubt he'll be a starting PG in the league again. He's not talking about after he spends his prime in Detroit as a 6th man. He's not talking about Jennings overtaking the guy we just paid a lot of money to be here a long time and is playing at a borderline All-Star level. He's talking about Jennings starting somewhere else - and sooner rather than later.

yeah I thought Stan liked the idea of Jennings as 6th man, but the last week of events make it seem like a trade could be more likely now.

He outright stated he liked Blake more, and now he is talking about Jennings as a starter and listing all his positives saying he is still young (like you said he isn't starting here so...). Then decides to play him in front of the one team that was rumored to have interest. He also lauded Affalo before the game calling him the most efficient midrange shooter in the league. A potential Jennings-Afflalo deal maybe?

AA would definitely be a nice fit next to Reggie and give us that much needed consistency at the SG position. A dream trade for me would be Jennings for Affalo & O'Quin. Then we can bring KCP off the bench or maybe use him in a package with Baynes in another trade later (for Markieff perhaps).

Reggie/Blake
Afflalo/Stanley
Marcus/Stanley
Markieff/Ersan
Drummond/O'Quin

[Todd3]

we need to get an asset for him going forward and not let him walk like Monroe.

More I think about it this is probably going to be the outcome. Stan said recently he liked Monroe but couldn't have that much money invested in one position with Drummond due for a new deal. So that logic would seem to apply to the PG position as well, and after just paying Reggie, he probably isn't planning on giving Jennings a big deal too when there are upgrades needed at other positions.

Being that there is no trade restriction on Jennings like there was with Monroe, he will probably look to get something this time around.

[Todd3]

When everyone around you is going small that doesn't mean you follow suit!

You play the type of game that benefits your team the most and there is no chance that line up of Jennings, Blake, RJ, SJ & Morris is a good one for us.

Even assuming Dre is off the table here's some line ups I'd prefer:

Morris
Illy
SJ
RJ
BJ

Anthony/Baynes
Morris
SJ
KCP
BJ

Or brute ball:

Baynes - high post
Morris - low post/PnR/PnP
SJ - secondary playmaker
KCP - defensive wing
RJ/BJ - playmaker/#1 option

Ain't no good line up with Blake IMO - he was & is an insurance policy

Spurs never went small. Heck, one can say they even went bigger now that they got Aldridge, Duncan, Diaw etc etc.

I might be misremembering but I think they went small with Diaw at C at times during their b2b Finals. Depends on personnel and what you're trying to accomplish. It works for some teams in some situations. You need the personnel to do it though.

[BadMofoPimp]

When everyone around you is going small that doesn't mean you follow suit!

You play the type of game that benefits your team the most and there is no chance that line up of Jennings, Blake, RJ, SJ & Morris is a good one for us.

Even assuming Dre is off the table here's some line ups I'd prefer:

Morris
Illy
SJ
RJ
BJ

Anthony/Baynes
Morris
SJ
KCP
BJ

Or brute ball:

Baynes - high post
Morris - low post/PnR/PnP
SJ - secondary playmaker
KCP - defensive wing
RJ/BJ - playmaker/#1 option

Ain't no good line up with Blake IMO - he was & is an insurance policy

Spurs never went small. Heck, one can say they even went bigger now that they got Aldridge, Duncan, Diaw etc etc.

I might be misremembering but I think they went small with Diaw at C at times during their b2b Finals. Depends on personnel and what you're trying to accomplish. It works for some teams in some situations. You need the personnel to do it though.

Diaw and Duncan on the court together is definitely not going small.

[Todd3]

Spurs never went small. Heck, one can say they even went bigger now that they got Aldridge, Duncan, Diaw etc etc.

I might be misremembering but I think they went small with Diaw at C at times during their b2b Finals. Depends on personnel and what you're trying to accomplish. It works for some teams in some situations. You need the personnel to do it though.

Diaw and Duncan on the court together is definitely not going small.

I meant Diaw at C with no Duncan.

[BadMofoPimp]

I might be misremembering but I think they went small with Diaw at C at times during their b2b Finals. Depends on personnel and what you're trying to accomplish. It works for some teams in some situations. You need the personnel to do it though.

Diaw and Duncan on the court together is definitely not going small.

I meant Diaw at C with no Duncan.

That didn't happen often. Most during 2012 season, he was playing PF alongside Baynes, Splitter or Bonner who are all over 6'10".

And, Diaw is a big guy nobody can really push around with long ass arms. He definitely ain't any small ball player.

Dennis Rodman was Defensive Player of the year and Top Rebounder in the NBA for years. And, he was only 6'9". Would that make him a small ball player?

[Todd3]

Diaw and Duncan on the court together is definitely not going small.

I meant Diaw at C with no Duncan.

That didn't happen often. Most during 2012 season, he was playing PF alongside Baynes, Splitter or Bonner who are all over 6'10".

And, Diaw is a big guy nobody can really push around with long ass arms. He definitely ain't any small ball player.

Dennis Rodman was Defensive Player of the year and Top Rebounder in the NBA for years. And, he was only 6'9". Would that make him a small ball player?

Yeah I was thinking about the Diaw/Bonner frontcourt. I consider that small ball. Diaw is an undersized PF playing C and Bonner is a stretch 4 who is basically a big SG, as he provides no paint presence or rebounding.

Small ball to me isn't really about size as much as guys playing up positions. Like putting a SF at PF, PG at SG, PF at C etc to create mismatches.

[BadMofoPimp]

I meant Diaw at C with no Duncan.

That didn't happen often. Most during 2012 season, he was playing PF alongside Baynes, Splitter or Bonner who are all over 6'10".

And, Diaw is a big guy nobody can really push around with long ass arms. He definitely ain't any small ball player.

Dennis Rodman was Defensive Player of the year and Top Rebounder in the NBA for years. And, he was only 6'9". Would that make him a small ball player?

Yeah I was thinking about the Diaw/Bonner frontcourt. I consider that small ball. Diaw is an undersized PF playing C and Bonner is a stretch 4 who is basically a big SG, as he provides no paint presence or rebounding.

Small ball to me isn't really about size as much as guys playing up positions. Like putting a SF at PF, PG at SG, PF at C etc to create mismatches.

Bonner was hardly a quick player. More of a spot up shooter who hung by the 3 point line like Laimbeer used to do. Rodman manned the Paint in Detroit with Laimbeer shooting 3's. Peoples perception of Big and Small ball is all distorted. Spurs are an old school Big man style half court team. No small ball there. If they played Leonard at PF, then they would be considered Small Ball.

[Todd3]

That didn't happen often. Most during 2012 season, he was playing PF alongside Baynes, Splitter or Bonner who are all over 6'10".

And, Diaw is a big guy nobody can really push around with long ass arms. He definitely ain't any small ball player.

Dennis Rodman was Defensive Player of the year and Top Rebounder in the NBA for years. And, he was only 6'9". Would that make him a small ball player?

Yeah I was thinking about the Diaw/Bonner frontcourt. I consider that small ball. Diaw is an undersized PF playing C and Bonner is a stretch 4 who is basically a big SG, as he provides no paint presence or rebounding.

Small ball to me isn't really about size as much as guys playing up positions. Like putting a SF at PF, PG at SG, PF at C etc to create mismatches.

Bonner was hardly a quick player. More of a spot up shooter who hung by the 3 point line like Laimbeer used to do. Rodman manned the Paint in Detroit with Laimbeer shooting 3's. Peoples perception of Big and Small ball is all distorted. Spurs are an old school Big man style half court team. No small ball there. If they played Leonard at PF, then they would be considered Small Ball.

I never said Rodman and Laimbeer was small ball. That's a big difference from Diaw/Bonner. Spurs use primarily traditional lineups now that they got LMA, but I was talking about the last few years before. I thought that's what you were talking about.

[BadMofoPimp]

Yeah I was thinking about the Diaw/Bonner frontcourt. I consider that small ball. Diaw is an undersized PF playing C and Bonner is a stretch 4 who is basically a big SG, as he provides no paint presence or rebounding.

Small ball to me isn't really about size as much as guys playing up positions. Like putting a SF at PF, PG at SG, PF at C etc to create mismatches.

Bonner was hardly a quick player. More of a spot up shooter who hung by the 3 point line like Laimbeer used to do. Rodman manned the Paint in Detroit with Laimbeer shooting 3's. Peoples perception of Big and Small ball is all distorted. Spurs are an old school Big man style half court team. No small ball there. If they played Leonard at PF, then they would be considered Small Ball.

I never said Rodman and Laimbeer was small ball. That's a big difference from Diaw/Bonner. Spurs use primarily traditional lineups now that they got LMA, but I was talking about the last few years before. I thought that's what you were talking about.

I would say Diaw, who is a 15-25mpg primarily a backup player did not make that team a Small Ball team.

Does that make the current Pistons a small ball team whenever Morris fills in at PF? No and No.