I'd like to see Ron starts, bring Batman off the bench. Don't under estimate Shane's offense skills. Remember he got couple of showtimes last season when Yao and Tmac were both down. And like to see what Ron did in Dallas to set the tone of the game.
This is a tough call if they were both healthy, Ron Vs Battier for starting SF. However, since Battier was injured, he will need to work his way back into game shape. So Battier wouldn't be starting when he comes back. He will work his way back. That would be few weeks after his return and Ron already got 2 months in with RA. It will be an uphill battle, given Battier's personality. he would probably let ron have the starting role. With the ways Tmac is playing, RA would have to consider letting Tmac lead the second unit. Like when we had our 22 wins streak. Brooks Barry Ron Scola Yao second unit Alston Tmac Battier Landry Hayes
Ron will still start, but the change here could be that T-Mac goes to the bench before Artest, and like the man slayer above me said, T-Mac can lead the 2nd unit when he comes back in. That way we can always have a balanced rotation and have steady scoring on the court at all times.
I think Battier will be eased back into the rotation. He'll start off the bench initially. If the starting group continues to struggle, there might be a switch. I see a lot of the Big Three stepping on eachother's toes to start the season.
I know this isn't a popular opinion, but why do you think Ron has been playing extensive minutes with the second unit? Do you think it's because Tmac and Shane are hurt, so Adelman is just keeping him in as long as he can? Or do you think it's because he works really well with that group on the court? In all honesty, if Ron was okay with it I think putting him in with the bench brigade could really work. But, after watching the substitution pattern in the first three games, I think coach is well aware of who is working well together right now. Until Tmac is 100% healthy no one can tell what our rotation will end up looking like. He needs people in there with him who can cover up his defensive misses. I am hoping that is just because of his bum leg not allowing him quick movement and not a loss of defensive intensity.
battier should not start, battier produce the same starting or off the bench. While artest may not be as good off the bench.
Shane is a one man fastbreak defender. If anybody has noticed, TMac is terrible at stopping the ball on the break... awful, pitiful, a disgrace. I'd say there's been at least 10 guys blow by Tracy as he watches the courtside photogs snap photos of the pretty dunks. Shane needs to be on the court early so we don't get in a track meet and give up easy baskets. Shane compliments Tracy and Yao's deficiencies. He's a better help defender than Ron. He takes fouls away from Yao. Meanwhile, Ron gives us a legit low post option off the bench. It provides a better balance for this team for him to come off the bench. I always have to laugh at how much people care about who starts when the biggest thing to watch is who finishes. Artest will be locking down guys at the end of games and hitting big shots. My guess is Artest or Landry play the 4 late in games, depending on matchups (Artest moves to 3 if Landry is at the 4). I love both of those guys in the 4th because they play big, are tough, and make big, big shots. Shane and even Rafer makes big shots. Guess who no longer makes big shots late in games. If Tracy is in the game late, he's more of a facilitator and a decoy.
Eh... I used to think that we should start Battier, but after seeing Brooks, Barry and Landry "bring it" off the bench for 2 out of 3 games at least I think we're fine starting him.
I like Battier to start and have Artest on the bench and in that Manu role. Artest could just come off the bench but play starter minutes like Manu does.
Artest is our second best player. I don't care whether he starts or not, but he should definitely be getting more minutes than Shane.
We've beat the hell out of this and the issue is the same, Artest is 10x better than Shane and 2x better than manu whom everyone likes to bring up. Why on earth people on this board equate the glueman with ultimate success of this team is quite funny to say the least. Shane couldn't start for 24 teams in the league and artest could start on them all. Shane, just like rafer is a 20min sub on a good team. If u put a gun to their head, the spurs would trade manu for artest everyday and twice on sunday. There isn't 1 thing shane does better than shane. Not to mention teams don't double off him, close out at the line out of control cause he's zero threat to go to the hoop. No matter what argument people like to play up, the idea is to beat the brakes off the other team, drink gatorade and joke late in the 4th. U start shane and the game has become harder to start the game.
Last year, the Rockets outscored their opponent in the first quarter 60% of the time. Only 5 other teams won the opening quarter more often. And that's despite the Rockets getting off to a shaky start last year with the new coach. The year before that, with JVG, the Rockets were even better in the opening period. I think, with Shane, Yao, and Tracy, our starters are good enough. And Artest would make our bench amazing. I'm not endorsing one idea over the other, but we know that Adelman favors starting Shane. There has to be some good reasons for it.
I don't know if you guys have noticed, but Ron is always the first starter to rotate out. I've been under the impression that it's because Battier will be the first off the bench when he gets back.
That's my thought as well (posted above - about half way up) That group is very efficient together and it gives Ron the right to be the "playmaker" which is something we all know he can do. It has the right mix of offense and defense.
Slightly exaggerated, Artest is 2X better than Manu? He's better, but not THAT much better. I disagree, any team that doesn't already have a superstar at both the 2 and the 3 would start Shane IMO. The only teams that it rules out right away is Houston, Boston and LA. Wrong. You are talking about a guy like Kendrick Perkins on the Celtics, and if you think Shane is on an even talent level as Perkins I want some of what you are smoking. His ability to guard any wingman is something few players have, off the top of my head the only players that can match his ability are Prince, Bowen, Kobe, and Artest. No one is saying Shane is better than Artest. But the point of benching him is you spread your scoring out. Cause what happens is we start all 3, and at one point in the half we have to bench two of the stars at the same time for a 5-6 minute stretch (and thats playing Artest and Yao 40 minutes a game). And then you only have 1 star on the floor. If you bench Artest and bring him in at the 7 minute mark in the quarter, you won't have to deal with it just being him for 5-6 minutes in the 2nd quarter. We don't HAVE to have all 3 stars in the game to begin the game, as you may of noticed last season, we did pretty well with just Yao and McGrady. I'd rather have 2 stars to start the game and less of these 5-6 minute 1 star stretches, than start all 3 of them and go 6 minutes without 2 of them in the 1st half.
I completely agree with you; Battier is an excellent role player. Artest is an All Star caliber player. I don't know why posters act like it is a toss up. If I recall correctly, Battier did not start for the Grizzlies.
is that why we have been pulling away from teams when our 2nd unit is on the floor? or why our transition D is a joke? if you don't see what Shane brings to this team by now,you never will. and that is why you are leebigez... at least you didn't make a ridiculous trade suggestion this time, though! kudos!
