[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mark the other & rebounding
On Mar 25, 2004, at 4:25 PM, Douglas342@xxxxxxx wrote:
Sort of on the same line, here's what struck me:
1. We are weak in rebounding. [OK, maybe so...]
2. So we need to give Mihm some minutes. [OK, that sounds
3. Hunter is having some offensive problems [well, maybe so, even
though stats might reveal otherwise]
4. But maybe he can help us in some manner at some time [well, I
5. So what we do is play Mihm, Blount and McCarty [would that be
Walter "no-boards" McCarty? OK, I get it. Play the nonrebounder to
get us more rebounds.]
6. And please note that I have not mentioned Kendrick Perkins.
[Yup, we noticed that.]
7. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...
In fairness, this team is really in a pickle vis a vis the playoffs.
It would be so easy to play Perkins and Hunter and tank the playoffs,
but part of me is glad to see efforts - even questionable ones - at
making the cut. I figure that any benefit to Hunter and Perkins to be
gained from playing 11 games is probably outweighed by the benefit of
making the playoffs for psychological reasons.
We are on the same page -- pointing out the ridiculousness of Carroll
playing the nonrebounder to help with rebounding (not to mention
missing more shots (esp. 3 pters) thus increasing the need for
But my point is is that its a false choice this "develop Hunter &
Perkins vs. make the playoffs". You can and should play Hunter 25-30
mins a night along with Mihm at 25-30 and throw Perkins 5-10 and I
believe you'd see LITTLE TO NO drop-off in terms of our chances of
making the playoffs.
I think we're both a better team RIGHT NOW and IN THE FUTURE by playing
hunter & perkins.
If I was running the show the mins. breakdown would look something like
PG - Atkins 26, Banks 22
SG & SF - Pierce 32, Davis 32, Welsch 32,
PF - Hunter 26, Jones 8, McCarty 8, Mihm 6
C - Blount 28, Mihm 20 (6 @ PF), Perkins 6
(the other) mark