You TOTALLY missed my point. I am not saying that Landry isn't as good as advertised.. I am saying interpret the information by what you see on the court. My point was defensively Scola and Landry together = FAIL against most good front court lineups.
Hayes isn't the problem. You don't start him and the opposition is going to get their inside game rolling and once it does, good luck stopping it. Battriza has to go. Ideally, Trevor would sit because: A. he sucks B. he sucks C. Shane is a much, much better defender. Much like with Hayes inside, I like that Shane can be out there from the opening tip making sure the wing player for the other side doesn't go bananas in the first quarter and get his rhythm and confidence. I can, however, live with Shane coming off the bench if Adelman absolutely has to start his nephew, Trevor Ariza. Really, it all boils down to less Ariza for this team. It seems almost everyone agrees on that and that is a rare thing on the BBS.
I am fine with that Dave....and concur....... But in all honesty, most NBA teams do not have a good center or post threat anymore.... Therefore is it important to start Chuck against teams that start guys that don't score much anyway? I think we need to mix up more than just Battriza. DD
I can't believe for once I'm agreeing with DD, but here it goes... Since you're stating that Scolandry is a horrible frontcourt defensively, what would be your solution for the lack of offense as its obvious to see we are struggling against good teams to begin games? Would you start David Andersen at center with Hayes at Forward? Start Budinger or Lowry in place of Trevor? Kyle and AB have been playing way better as a back court then AB & Ariza. 2 Shane Battier's do not work in the starting lineup. My question is what is your solution to the problem? Cause to me it seems like we can't take Hayes out, according to you and Durvasa. That would kill us on defense, correct?
Its consistently bad regardless of the other 3 Rockets on the floor, DD. And what does it matter who they are playing against? If they are struggling against non-starting units, you mean to say they will all of a sudden be effective playing against starters? I think there are too many holes defensively with those two. Landry struggles with recognition. Scola just doesn't match up well, physically, against a lot of players. I mean, it could work; I just wouldn't count on it.
I don't think that's necessarily true. The main problem recently has been the motion in the offense. There has been a tendency for the guys in the starting lineup to stagnate. I don't know if it's because they are tired or what... but they stopped moving and stopped pushing the ball. When's the last time you saw Scola run more than one fast break with Aaron Brooks in a game recently. Trevor is trying to go one on one... Scola is trying to go one on one... Aaron is trying to go one on one and it's not working. Heck even Chuck has tried it too often lately. They need to get back to the motion that was more successful. Honestly... the ball is stopping way too much with Trev in the half court. If it isn't stopping with him then it's never getting set up into the motion offense... or if it does they aren't cutting and moving like they did in the past. Do they just need time to make corrections in practice after the long tough trip they've had so far? Or is it something that needs to be corrected with a line up change? Right now I am of the mindset that adjustments in practice will help... but our defense is already worse than before the last thing we need is more time together on the court with two players that consistently blow those defensive rotations making it worse. I reserve the right to believe that changes may be needed if things continue with the starters this way. I tend to think that things will get better with time to work on the problems.
I don't get it either. It seems like fans get so excited to see us score consistently with Scolandry on the court together but it's just bad overall. Chuck with either one of them is a much better option most games.
You're totally right DD. Battier and Ariza's shooting percentage is at their worst. If they could somehow shoot in the mid 40's(FG%) we could have gotten more wins maybe. Both of them cannot create their own shots unless there's a hole in the defense or a mismatch. Chuck's scoring is a bonus but lately he has not fared well with the big guys. Things that keep the Rockets afloat are their hustling plays, overall team effort and offensive rebounds. In fact based on the overall team FG% the Rockets are in the bottom ten in the league grouped with the losing teams. Without those 3 things mentioned above they could have been easily a lottery team by now. Landry and Scola are the only ones with a better FG%. Brooks FG% is decent but still average.
Right now Adelman is starting his best defensive group (except for Brooks rather than Lowry). Any change in the front court would likely hurt the defense, unless its Landry in for Scola. I think Landry+Hayes would be more effective in the starting lineup than Scola+Hayes, but the difference might be minimal because Landry's effectiveness on offense could be reduced. Alternatively, the Rockets could try Landry+Andersen. They would be sacrificing defense, no doubt, but I think that combination would yield considerable gains on offense. I believe there is a lot of value in the increased range Andersen provides, and despite his defensive shortcomings he can still match up better against larger centers than Scola.
Currently, I think they can correct the offensive problems through adjustments in practice that they haven't had time for. If a change has to be made I would rather it was Battier or Ariza than Chuck or Scola. I don't think coach would want that though, likely he would rather Landry for Chuck, which is mostly how he's been getting Carl more minutes. I'd even take Andersen as a starting center over putting Carl and Luis together for more minutes. But that defeats the purpose of stretching the court for Carl to work down low. Trevor's minutes need to be reduced... yes they want him to get used to more minutes, but it's hurting the team overall. He and AB are not working well together and Shane and Trev both struggling shooting in the same game is devastating to our offensive possibilities with the starters. I really think that a few days in practice will help them get back on track. When they watch the film of these last three games and see how stagnant the offense was with the starters they will see what they have to correct. If that doesn't work and they still have issues then I say start with working Shane off the bench and start Chase or Lowry.
Far point. I may be overrating Hayes' impact on the court but it seems on many nights the minute he sits the defense heads south quickly. It's not just the post defense but the rotations on the pick and roll and the stops on penetrating guards he picks up. He is to me, without a doubt, the most important defender on this team. My question would be who do we start in his place? Scola and Landry are a pretty bad tandem on the court. I also like Landry's punch off the bench. Andersen? Honestly, I can live with that if Adelman wanted to try that.
Here's what Shane Battier had to say about the first unit not being so great lately: http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/suns_send_rockets_third_straig_2010_01_07.html
I think the one change that may help jumpstart the starting unit is to insert Lowry for either Ariza or Battier. The twin PG (a.k.a. "double penetration") approach has its disadvantages, but seems to work well overall, particularly for getting sense of flow into the offense.
I had to go up and highlight where I said the exact same thing above this post... You can see it happening.. they aren't moving and all trying to go one on one and they just can't do that and be successful.
No way chuck is gonna be benched.. that guy pretty much anchors the defense and is tooo good at what he does.. he knows his abilities and plays accordingly.. just swap Ariza or Battier for C-Bud. that sud do.
If it really is an issue with chemistry, Budinger in for Ariza might do the trick. Maybe Ariza clicks better with Lowry than Brooks. The concern is how he takes the apparent demotion. Have we replaced one diva with another?
I think that would work great, actually having two guards on the court helps. The problem I see is that we don't have anyone else who can handle the basketball in the event that both Lowry and Brooks are tired. Despite the size disadvantage, I think the lack of a third guard is the ONLY reason Adelman has not gone to that lineup.
