Tom White wrote:I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
and if we figure out a defensive scheme that works for Myles and Damos, the same scheme should work with either one of them and Julius.
Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow
Tom White wrote:I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
Wizop wrote:Tom White wrote:I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
and if we figure out a defensive scheme that works for Myles and Damos, the same scheme should work with either one of them and Julius.
Tom White wrote:So which two of the three would you start, and how do you think that would set with the third guy?
Wizop wrote:Tom White wrote:So which two of the three would you start, and how do you think that would set with the third guy?
I tell Randle's agent in the negotiations that we're not bringing Julius in ahead of our current core; but while Myles and Damos will start most nights, Julius can expect 30 minutes a night. either he's comfortable coming here on those terms or he's not.
unless Herb sanctions a lottery year.Scoot McGroot wrote:Certainly means we need to find a solid fill in for that position. Whether that's Wes taking the room exception, a 2/3 wing in the draft, another free agent, or even if it's Doug temporarily, that's a spot I'm not sure we're comfortable with Sumner running solo for that long.
Tom White wrote:Wizop wrote:if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?
I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.
Topofthekey wrote:Tom White wrote:Wizop wrote:if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?
I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.
The way I see it, this is the era of modern NBA, people really need to start seeing things differently
For example, why does a team need to have only ONE starting lineup? Why can't a team have TWO starting lineups?
And then it would be up to the coach to decide on a game to game or week to week basis which starting lineup to go for, depending on matchups
In fact, let's take this concept even further; we've heard a lot about load management, which is a thing, so instead of having 5 starters, why can't a team work with some sort of starting schedule? For example, instead of having a player start 82 games, why can't we have two players at the same position start 41 games each?
And I don't mean on an ad hoc basis, I mean having everything planned out, right at the beginning of the season. Say for example we have Vic and Wes, both capable of starting at SG, and we tell them "ok Vic we are going to start you 70 games, and Wes will start the remaining 12", so that those 12 games come as some sort of scheduled maintenance kind of thing for Vic. How is this a problem? Why wait till your stars are worn out and on the verge of breaking down before reducing their load? Why not plan it out right from the beginning? It doesn't even have to be 12 games in a row, we should sprinkle the 12 games strategically throughout the season in order to manage Vic's load, hence it being a starting schedule
This is what I think can be done, if Pacers have Myles, Domas, and Randle all on the team
Between the C and PF positions, there are 164 starts (82 games x 2 positions) - just plan it out ahead how are they going to split that 162 starts - maybe 65 for Myles, 65 for Randle, 34 for Domas. So Myles and Randle gets to start in 65 of our games, and Domas gets to start in 34 of our games. And it's not like they won't get their minutes if they aren't starting, they still will get their 20+ minutes even if they aren't starting, so I don't see any problem in that
If anything, you're basically telling Myles and Randle that they can play hard for 65 games, and then have a bit of rest and for the other games so that they can take care of their body and have a longer career - for Domas, he'll still get to start 34 games (17 games each when Myles/Randle rests), which is a healthy chunk. And if anyone gets injured, obviously you adjust those numbers further, so Domas could very well end up starting a lot more than 34 games
I mean, we're in an era where a 7ft center is expected to be able to shoot 3-pointers, why are we still stuck in the mindset that a team needs to have a "starting lineup", why can't we work with a "starting schedule" instead?
Scoot McGroot wrote:I think flexibility is the key to success in the NBA. Both in starting lineups, and how they’re played.
Scheduling everything at the beginning of the year is likely too much work when a twisted ankle in the first game basically leads you to throw the whole plan in the garbage.
Rest, rotations, etc? Absolutely. I appreciate the though, but the follow through is where you lose it. People just have to play some days, no matter what your schedule says. People just need a day off sometimes no matter what your schedule from months ahead said. Stomach bugs, twists, sprains, and an inevitable season ending injury all individually kill a schedule. They don’t kill an intent and focus, though, and that’s where I’m with you.
Topofthekey wrote:Tom White wrote:Wizop wrote:if it takes 15 to 18 to resign Thad, would anyone want to take a run at Julius Randle instead?
I think I would. You lose defense, but gain scoring and rebounding.
The problem becomes playing time and starting positions between Myles, Domas and Randle. None of them will be happy for long coming off the bench. Of course, the same problem can arise with Myles, Domas and Thad, but I think Thad would be more likely to accept a bench role at some point.
The way I see it, this is the era of modern NBA, people really need to start seeing things differently
For example, why does a team need to have only ONE starting lineup? Why can't a team have TWO starting lineups?
And then it would be up to the coach to decide on a game to game or week to week basis which starting lineup to go for, depending on matchups
In fact, let's take this concept even further; we've heard a lot about load management, which is a thing, so instead of having 5 starters, why can't a team work with some sort of starting schedule? For example, instead of having a player start 82 games at one position, why can't we have two players at the same position start 41 games each?
And I don't mean on an ad hoc basis, I mean having everything planned out, right at the beginning of the season. Say for example we have Vic and Wes, both capable of starting at SG, and we tell them "ok Vic we are going to start you 70 games, and Wes will start the remaining 12", so that those 12 games come as some sort of scheduled maintenance kind of thing for Vic. How is this a problem? Why wait till your stars are worn out and on the verge of breaking down before reducing their load? Why not plan it out right from the beginning? It doesn't even have to be 12 games in a row, we should sprinkle the 12 games strategically throughout the season in order to manage Vic's load, hence it being called a schedule
This is what I think can be done, if Pacers have Myles, Domas, and Randle all on the team
Between the C and PF positions, there are 164 starts (82 games x 2 positions) - just plan it out ahead how are they going to split that 162 starts - maybe 65 for Myles, 65 for Randle, 34 for Domas. So Myles and Randle gets to start in 65 of our games, and Domas gets to start in 34 of our games. And it's not like they won't get their minutes if they aren't starting, they still will get their 20+ minutes even if they aren't starting, so I don't see any problem in that
If anything, you're basically telling Myles and Randle that they can play hard for 65 games, and then have a bit of rest and for the other games so that they can take care of their body and have a longer career - for Domas, he'll still get to start 34 games of the season (17 games each when Myles/Randle rests), which is a healthy chunk. And if anyone gets injured, obviously you adjust those numbers further, so Domas could very well end up starting a lot more than 34 games
I mean, we're in an era where a 7ft center is expected to be able to shoot 3-pointers, why are we still stuck in the mindset that a team needs to have a "starting lineup", why can't we work with a "starting schedule" instead?
Topofthekey wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:I think flexibility is the key to success in the NBA. Both in starting lineups, and how they’re played.
Scheduling everything at the beginning of the year is likely too much work when a twisted ankle in the first game basically leads you to throw the whole plan in the garbage.
Rest, rotations, etc? Absolutely. I appreciate the though, but the follow through is where you lose it. People just have to play some days, no matter what your schedule says. People just need a day off sometimes no matter what your schedule from months ahead said. Stomach bugs, twists, sprains, and an inevitable season ending injury all individually kill a schedule. They don’t kill an intent and focus, though, and that’s where I’m with you.
Of course
I'm not saying we stick to the schedule by hook or by crook, we obviously make swaps and adjustments throughout the season - for example, say this is the schedule in an upcoming month
Game 1: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 2: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 3: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 4: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 5: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 6: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 7: Myles/Domas, Randle
Game 8: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 9: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 10: Myles/Randle, Domas
Game 11: Myles/Randle, Domas
Based on the schedule, Randle will come off the bench in games 5, 6, and 7, for his scheduled maintenance
But what if Domas ate a bad pizza the night before and happens to not be 100% on game 5?
No problem, just tweak the schedule, perhaps swap the schedule for game 5 and 8, so that Randle gets his scheduled rest during games 6, 7, and 8 instead
Scoot McGroot wrote:And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.
Wizop wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.
I get that you don't get to this level unless you are super-competitive, but a coach should be able to make a player understand that he's one of our top three players but our best chance of winning requires him to come off the bench, I know few of you are old enough to have seen the great Boston teams, but Red Auerbach pulled it off.
Scoot McGroot wrote:And then Dom tweaks his ankle at game 7 and is out 2-3 weeks. What do you do then?
Scoot McGroot wrote:And also, guys just take it personally and it’s an ego thing as to who starts over who.
alSO, load management means resting guys so they’d be inactive those nights. It’s not just rotating who’s starting and who’s coming off the bench. They’re still warming up, getting treatment, playing, etc. that’s not rest.