The plus and minus's of having a 3 guard starting line-up

[magnifier661]

I've preached so many times that I want other teams to be forced to change their "Comfort line-ups" playing against us since last season and I believe with this line-up can do that.

Pros

As much as some may think Roy will have a tough time guarding other SFs, I think it's harder for those SFs to guard him. Roy will demand doubles regardless of who you put on him, and having a slower SF on him will be even harder. Also, having Roy on the wing will open things up for Aldridge and Oden down low. It also forces Aldridge to score in the paint, since we already have the perimeter covered.

Miller is the facilitator, and he doesn't need to score from the perimeter to be a facilitator. Having blake and Roy on the wings will have two players able to hit the outside shot being the two players getting kick-outs from Oden and Aldridge after being doubled.

Defensively, Miller and Roy looked good covering each other's tale. Also, I read from someone else about Blake not having to worry too much on the offensive end, which helps his defense. So for the most part, they cover each other's tail to make sure no one penetrates and gets our bigs in trouble.

Cons

Lack of size on the perimeter. Will this work against teams like Cleveland, Denver, etc. that have very tough SFs that penetrate? We could see some serious problems defensively with a SF out muscling our guards and demanding doubles. But for the most part, I think the pros outweigh the cons, IMO.

Thoughts?

 

[Ed O]

I prefer to have size advantages, rather than disadvantages, at most positions.

With the three guard lineup we are small at both the SG and SF position, while having Webster in there instead of Blake, we'd be at least average at all five positions.

It's not like we gain much of anything in terms of quickness, either.

I'm all for creating mismatches for opponents, but we should put our best players on the floor when we do it, and this starting lineup does not do that.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

I honestly think it depends on the opponent.

Against the Spurs it worked because Miller did a surprisingly nice job on Manu and Roy can handle R-Jeff (R-Jeff did most of his scoring in the 2nd quarter against our 2nd unit) - but the Spurs had trouble with 3 ball handlers on the other side of the floor.

Against Denver it will likely leave us struggling to slow-down 'Melo - but, it must be noted that it does not seem like Melo was having a hard time scoring on us with Webster in there as well, he did put over 40 on us. The only one that seemed to get somewhat to Melo last year was Nic - with his freakish length and quick agility. Since he is not available this year - Webster is our 2nd best option - but it is still a big downgrade.

 

[MARIS61]

Simply put, it's plus 1 guard, minus 1 forward.

 

[magnifier661]

I prefer to have size advantages, rather than disadvantages, at most positions.

With the three guard lineup we are small at both the SG and SF position, while having Webster in there instead of Blake, we'd be at least average at all five positions.

It's not like we gain much of anything in terms of quickness, either.

I'm all for creating mismatches for opponents, but we should put our best players on the floor when we do it, and this starting lineup does not do that.

Ed O.

Well Miller isn't quite a "undersized" guard. In fact, I would go so far and say he's bigger than Fernandez.

It's not about "Quickness" over "Size". It's about having the best group to give Aldridge and Oden the ball, plus having more BBIQ to cover the perimeter.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Whatever we get out of it all of our bigs are still getting into foul trouble in part because they are having to contend with driving guards and wings. Hill and Ginobli got past Blake and Miller almost at will as did Jefferson (the facial dunk that Greg stepped away from with three minutes to go in the game springs to mind).

Bottom line: I don't expect this lineup to work in most situations, perhaps against teams that feature inferior backcourts and/or wings that are more shooters than drivers but this is not a recipe for longterm success.

 

[mrkorb]

Pfft, 3 guards. I can't wait for the Mills, Miller, Blake, Bayless, Roy starting lineup.

 

[southnc]

I don't think you can maintain this lineup for very long. Perhaps it's just a transition that will eventually send Blake to the bench, whilst making sure Roy & Miller can figure things out. (You could try Rudy with the 3-guard set, but he is definitely not playing well enough right now and I still don't like Roy guarding SFs).

The above seems logical, except for one big problem: Roy wants the ball in the 4th. In that case, Miller is redundant since he really can't shoot. So, you would want Blake or Rudy. Right now, Blake is the better player. So, you would start Miller and then finish with Blake, unless Roy is willing to trust Miller with the ball in the 4th - doubtful.

 

[Ed O]

Well Miller isn't quite a "undersized" guard. In fact, I would go so far and say he's bigger than Fernandez.

You saying it doesn't make it true. Miller is listed as FOUR inches shorter than Fernandez and has played the PG position throughout his career. Asking him to defend SGs at this stage is something that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It's not about "Quickness" over "Size". It's about having the best group to give Aldridge and Oden the ball, plus having more BBIQ to cover the perimeter.

If we were picking up quickness, then it would account for the step down in size. We are not, so it's a matter of giving up size for other things. I think that the team would spread the floor and defend just as well with either Webster and Fernandez in the lineup instead of Blake and we would not be giving up any size.

I also think that, with Rudy, our passing to Aldridge and Oden would be improved. Blake is terrible at making entry passes (or at least in demonstrating a willingness to do so).

Ed O.

 

[hasoos]

I would rather they go bigger than smaller. Last year the Cavs lost in the playoffs to the Magic purely because of the size mismatch on the perimeter. Let's put it this way. If I was setting the lineup, one of the other SG would be playing SG, not Blake. My starting lineup would be the lineup which I felt was the most offensive potent lineup available. That means dictating the lineup mismatches and strengths, providing a lot of length out on the floor for defense, and then to top it off, I would only sub in a few bench guys at a time and have at least a starter or 2 out on the floor with them to keep the lineup stable at all times.

Right now my wildcard is Bayless. If he starts getting time, he might just develope into a Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson type player that guarantees bench scoring every night.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I would rather they go bigger than smaller. Last year the Cavs lost in the playoffs to the Magic purely because of the size mismatch on the perimeter. Let's put it this way. If I was setting the lineup, one of the other SG would be playing SG, not Blake. My starting lineup would be the lineup which I felt was the most offensive potent lineup available. That means dictating the lineup mismatches and strengths, providing a lot of length out on the floor for defense, and then to top it off, I would only sub in a few bench guys at a time and have at least a starter or 2 out on the floor with them to keep the lineup stable at all times.

Right now my wildcard is Bayless. If he starts getting time, he might just develope into a Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson type player that guarantees bench scoring every night.

My best hope for Jerryd is that he does become that instant offense kind of guy off the bench this year, with just a little bit of "point-guarding" mixed in ... and hopefully he's trying to learn as much as he can from Miller while he's here for (probably) the next 2 or 3 years and can be the heir apparent when his time is up (hope springs eternal as they say).

With Blake being in a contact year and probably set to make more money than the team would like to pay him as a veteran backup maybe Jerryd can show he's capable of filling whatever void Steve vacates -- assuming he's not coming back next year.