MoT has to be our Marc Jackson

DearRock · 02-22-2002, 04:30 PM

I do not want to reharsh the Marc Jackson to the Rockets thing although RT almost cried last night. However, MoT is listed at 6-9, 260lbs while MJ is at 6-10, 270lbs; and with MoT being inactive he could be even heavier. So why don't we just let MoT do what we were going to ask MJ to do. They both have outside jumpers and a low post move although MoT's rebounding needs work. In addition to the similarities, we can stop saying we have a glut at 4, and looking to move KT. We need not feel a sense of loss and realize we have all the pieces already, when healthy.

ROXTXIA · 02-22-2002, 05:15 PM

RT's gonna throw some weird matchup scenarios out there next year. Cato is probably only good for 24 minutes a game anyway; Mo might play most of the remaining minutes. So he'll get his 30 minutes a game.

With Mo's middle game, Rice's outside game, and the guards hurtling about, we might just have something to get excited about. There are few worthwhile centers out there anyway. Mo's no bruiser, but I'd rather pay him to be out there. Cato runs hot and cold. Usually the latter.

Mo, Griffin, Rice, Cat, and Steve on the floor at the same time would be really interesting to see.

I still want Odom, but I'm sorry to bring it up again.

haven · 02-22-2002, 05:24 PM

We won't do that because Marc Jackson and Mo T aren't that similar.

1. Mo has tremendously better ball skills. Jackson doesn't really have the ability to front someone... Mo does.

2. Mo has a good jump shot for a PF. Jackson has a half-way decent one.

3. Mo is a good passer. Jackson is passable, from what I've seen (though I haven't seen enough to really evaluate this very well... but few PFs, imo, have taylor's skills in this dept).

4. Mo is more athletic. Jackson has nice size, but Moe is quicker and faster.

Mo and KT might have a real battle for the starting 4 spot next year. They both seem liek slightly above averager PFs. I think the Rockets should start both of them, personally, and let the other play the 3.

DearRock · 02-22-2002, 05:48 PM

Haven, so you would be bringing EG off the bench? With the way the Wolves and Mav have improved we cannot afford to start Cato. That Mav current starting lineup is averaging 98.8 points per game. I do not know if we can rely on athletically challenged players in our starting lineup, and expect to matchup.

With MJ being in Minni, we will get to see a lot more of him. My guess is that he is as quick as MoT and probably has a more complete low post offensive game.

In my opinion, we are not one player away from the playoffs. We are a motion and fast break offense and pressing defense away from the playoffs. We have the players to get that done.

haven · 02-22-2002, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Haven, so you would be bringing EG off the bench? With the way the Wolves and
Mav have improved we cannot afford to start Cato. That Mav current starting
lineup is averaging 98.8 points per game. I do not know if we can rely on
athletically challenged players in our starting lineup, and expect to matchup.

Hold on. We're not even in the playoffs, and you're worried about contending with the Mavs and Wolves immediately? One step at a time, buddy...

I would not start Cato. I'd start Griffin at the 5.

Quote:

With MJ being in Minni, we will get to see a lot more of him. My guess is that he
is as quick as MoT and probably has a more complete low post offensive game.

You have no reason to suppose this. Marc Jackson is a slug. He rebounds well. He shoots half-decently. That is all.

Quote:

In my opinion, we are not one player away from the playoffs. We are a motion
and fast break offense and pressing defense away from the playoffs. We have
the players to get that done.

A "fast break offense?" What the hell is that? I do wish that the Rockets ran more... but in the NBA, that's not an offense.

Ok, if you think it's a question of strategy, I challenge you to do this:

Find a line-up in the Western Conference playoff race that our current starting 5 is superior to. Enjoy your search.

DearRock · 02-22-2002, 06:15 PM

The challenge. When you say current lineup, I assume you mean when healthy.

MoT
EG
KT
Mobes
Francis

Teams in the WC that do not have a better starting 5: Pheonix, Portland, Utah, Denver, Golden State, Memphis, Clippers, Seattle and San Antonio.

As I went down the teams I even surprised myself how competitive we could be with the maturity of the existing group as opposed to looking for something that is probably not there.

Of course added to that scoring lineup is Moochie, Rice, Cato, Tmo and OT. That is why I say, look at the system and not the talent. Heck, we are above 500 with Stevie in the lineup much less with MoT and Rice added to the mix. Talent deficient we are not.

DearRock · 02-22-2002, 06:19 PM

Haven, a fast break offense is one that resembles the Nets. You think the increased scoring in the league this year has come from lenghtening the games to 50 mins, or from a slow, walk it up, methodical, offense or a quick strike offense?

haven · 02-22-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Haven, a fast break offense is one that resembles the Nets. You think the increased scoring in the league this year has come from lenghtening the games to 50 mins, or from a slow, walk it up, methodical, offense or a quick strike offense?

One can choose to try to run frequently, as an offensive tendency... but that's not an "offense." A team's real offense begins when the players enter their half-court sets. Fast breaks are contingent upon a variety of factors. The rebound, having a big man who can make a good outlet pass... managing to beat the defenders back... etc.

That's something that can happen. And you can break down a defense by running when the situation is right. But it's not an offense, per se.

DVauthrin · 02-22-2002, 06:58 PM

dearrock,

I believe haven meant our current lineup that means MOT is out and cato is starting