There are endless possibilities. One might be the Scott is unable to get the team into their offense, which in turn means players like Sharpe are unable to get the quality reps because they don't get the ball at the proper time or in the proper position. My question is meant to ask if Scoot getting maximum minutes/reps outweighs all other team growth
Agreed. I may move Thybulle up a couple spots though. Love his defense and and I think he can be a solid shooter as well.
I like that. But what if Scoot is being stupid on offense? Do we still continue to force action at him, regardless of what it means to everyone else? Do we want him to understand what it's like to play off the ball so he can see those actions/reads from other positions on the court?
That's certainly one of the possible outcomes. As a consistent proponent of putting the best players out there: If he is the best, I want him playing a ton! The "if" part is important to me though, it must be somewhat earned.
If he's being stupid you sub him out and talk to him and then put him back in. We don't need Scoot playing off the ball. He's not a good enough shooter and nobody else is a good enough PG. Except Brogdan, but I think he'll be gone soon.
I want him to play through it. The alternative is that Billups sticks him over in the corner and he gets to stand and watch.
Hopefully there are more than those two options. I would be against sticking him in the corner and watching. Plus, if Brogdon is our best player, we should probably have him at point!
Never said our best player should be starting. In fact, I said the opposite. I don’t think Simons or Brogdon should start.
You must love being bad forever if you don't even want our best player starting. What a culture that would create... In my world, minutes should be earned, not given.
Not on a rebuilding team. That’s the whole point. Otherwise we are starting Brogdon, Simons, Grant, Williams, and Ayton. That’s not a playoff team.
I like the idea of building a culture around competing and earning minutes. If young guys aren't good enough to compete with role players, then they're not good enough be playing, in my opinion. Difference in philosophies I guess.
Jermaine could not outplay Grant/Sheed/Sabonis and yet he immediately went to Indy and became an All Star. Giving young guys a long leash in order to work through mistakes is critical. If they’re scared of messing up because they don’t want to get the hook, it will put them under a lot of pressure and cause them to screw up.
That makes zero sense to me if you're talking about prioritizing playing time and experience for talented, young players.
I'd like it if we started that lineup. It's not as if by not starting Scoot that somehow means he can't play as many minutes as they want him to play. It's silly. If we start in a more competitive manner, everything about the game is more enjoyable. There's nothing to be gained by destroying Scoot's confidence like this. He's literally 19 years old. I'm surprised everyone doesn't agree, honestly.
I believe talented, young players, can earn plenty of minutes. If they are talented, they'll be able to compete with role players when it comes to earning playing time. Being young and simply having potential doesn't mean you should be handed 40 minutes a night. OKC played 34 year old Chris Paul 30mpg despite having Shai and Dort on the roster. Both young guys turned out just fine. It's possible they even learned a lot because of CP3 getting those minutes.
It appears you're coming to the conclusion that Jermaine would not have become an All-Star in Portland, which I disagree with. In fact, I'd argue him playing with and behind guys like Grant/Sheed/Sabonis helped him become an All-Star. He wasn't just given minutes in his first two seasons simply because of potential, he was having to compete in practice, in a winning culture. Competing worked out great for Jermaine.
Scoot has more than one successful outcome with the blazers... I think theres some confusion about things.. first and foremost Scoota Henderson is and has always been whats called -- An Attack Guard.. He is very much a "downhill" player.. So the idea of pigeon holing him as "the PG of the future" is truly a narrow way to view things! Because he can very well become the PG of the future, thats a viable outcome, he'll need to shoot the 3 better I presume to wrangle that. Scoot can also REPLACE BROGDON years down the line... and then Scoot gets filled in with a 3pt shooter.. n truly Simons has some flexibility just like this so it truly is a flexible situation, this is whats cool about the state of the combo guard in todays nba in 2023.. n Scoot doesnt need to be the do-it-all guy, he can function as this sort of bruiser, as well, long as the rest of the floor spacing is in order.. N I think this is being understated n ima just leave this right there to let it marinate before i detract by becoming verbose.
Scoot is not a bust. He just isn't going to play the same way people have grown accustomed to seeing Lillard play. Lillard was effective because he stretched the court. He was a shooter and demanded attention from half court. That gave other players a lot of opportunities. Scoot really isn't a great shooter. He will have to collapse the court and kick out to better shooters. If teams do not defend him driving they will get burned so they must pack the paint and put their best defender on him. This should help others get better looks. The trick is getting players to buy into this system and coaching it well.
