I have to agree, I've all but given up on Simmons. Hopefully as someone else said they are showcasing him. Needless to say, this isn't a surprise on Frank's part, he always seems to find a player he likes which really isn't all that great of a player.
Yi was terrible in the clutch, which is unlike him and therefore deserved to be yank. Anderson deserved minutes down the stretch but he had 5 fouls. Maybe Franks just isn't more comfortable with young players closing out games.
I think everyone would agree with this. Simmons playing in crunch time at the 4 as if he were RJ or something was mindboggling on Frank's part. It very nearly cost them the game, as did playing Simmons so much. It's possible that Frank sees something in practices with Simmons that isn't spilling over to games, and he wants to keep his confidence high in hopes of drawing that out, but still there's no excuse. Frank could clearly tell that Anderson was having a great game, much better than Simmons, and had earned the right to be playing down the stretch with his play. I was boiling at the thought of the aftergame comment, re: why did he pull Anderson for Simmons: "I just thought the stage might be a little too big for him, coming home, etc, BS crap ..." He needs to play the players who are playing their best down the stretch of games, rookies or vets - the only reason to change this formula is if you want to forcefeed the rookies not because you want to forcefeed Bobby friggin' Simmons! There's really no excuse for Simmons, the way he had been playing, to be in that position last night. Anderson was a much better option - but I don't think Frank will ever learn his lesson in this regard, and winning this game probably doesn't help.
That's exactly the same response he gave in the Hornets game last year at IZOD when he yanked Sean Williams, who was playing brilliantly and patrolling the paint like a one man platoon, and put in Jason Collins to close the game. The result? Collins fouled a 3 point shooter, the crucial play that swung the game for the Hornets and gave the Nets a loss. Cosign.
You've convinced me. I've taken down my Bobby Simmons avatar. Maybe we'll just trade him for KG. Though I hear KG is a bit inconsistent at times.
Simmons is shooting 40% from deep. Hayes is shooting 26%. In the last three games, Simmons is shooting 5 for 11 from deep; Hayes hasn't made a three pointer in three games. End of discussion...at least the reasoned part.
Simmons is getting wide open looks. People don't understand that having Hayes off the bench doesn't really help him all that much. I used to think he'd be better suited off the bench to make up for the lack of scoring, but he won't be as productive. Hayes is not a 2nd option, but he can be relied on heavenly as a 3rd. Give Jarvis those open looks and I guarantee a percentage higher than 40% without the dumb shit that Simmons pulls sometimes. He is better than Simmons in every aspect of the game, minus maybe strength. I really don't know how people aren't seeing that....
Simmons is a better defender than Hayes and a better scorer than Hassell... and that's not meant as praise for Simmons, but it is what it is. We need an upgrade here. Gerald Wallace please. I like Hayes as the sub off the bench when Carter or Harris sit.
No, it's not the end. You conveniently overlook that no one is even pretending to guard Simmons on guard penetration, especially late, because he is such a bona fide brick layer. That has enormous secondary effect on the drive openings available for Vince and Devin. The high quality of shots Simmons is getting, how the ball is coming to him, is such that his misses are terribly damaging to team performance and will, eventually, be damaging to team morale if he is on the floor at crunch time. I even sensed that last night from Carter's body language at one point after about the 3rd wide open miss from Simmons last night. On the other hand, Jarvis has hit HUGE jumpers in numerous games where momentum was an issue, including a crucial 3 late in Toronto while Simmons, IIRC, has yet to hit a crunch jumper in any game despite having many more opportunities. Hayes is further more a legitimate threat to fake a three, get his man in the air, drive in a ways, and hit an easier midrange jumper, which he has impressively done on several occasions. Simmons putting the ball on the floor is usually reason for averting the eyes. The other obvious point is that shooting does not consist merely of 3-point territory. Hayes is shooting 49% from two point land and has taken 82 shots (68% of his total) from that region in 334 total game minutes. Simmons is shooting a horrifically abysmal 32% from 2-point territory while taking half (49%) of his shots from there. That differential is gargantuan.
Don't agree overall. Better against physical forwards? Yes. Better in terms of rotations and moving his feet? No way. Jarvis has had some big, big deflections and steals, including two in the Toronto game because he read the play before it happened.
I agree. I don't know why that is being overlooked in what I've written. For the last time, this is not about whether Simmons should play or whether he should start. It's about whether he should FINISH in preference to Hayes (on most nights) and whether he should be playing more minutes than Hayes on a nightly basis. The answer to both those questions is no.
Jarvis was in at the end against Toronto. Against the Clips the starters closed out the game +9. The Laker game was a blow out and the end didn't matter. I believe Simmons was in at the end against Sacramento because he is a much better rebounder than Jarvis at the PF position, which was where Frank had him. Prior to Toronto, the Cleveland game was a blow out and didn't matter who was in at the end. In Atlanta Jarvis was in until he got hurt. Frank went with Anderson in place of Simmons in the home Atlanta game. I'm not a big Simmons fan, but overall last night he had a +5 impact in the game and Hayes was a +1, thanks mostly to a +2 over the last 40 seconds after Carter got hurt and he was playing with Simmons. To start the 4th quarter the Kings went +3 and Frank made wholesale substitutions and kept only Dooling and Simmons and the Nets went +3. Then he subbed Harris for Simmons and the Kings went +6 over a good chunk of the 4th. He put Simmons back in for the last minute and the Nets went +5 to tie the score! We finished +2 in OT with Simmons. Frank must've seen something he liked with Simmons in rather than on the bench. Hey we won and it's obvious there is no SF on this roster that clearly deserves minutes above any other. Looks like it's a matter of end game match ups and circumstances and since Frank studies the tendencies of everything during the game I trust him to make that call. And one more thing... it wasn't Simmons fault that Harris was horrible for the first 47 minutes of the game. Think he went partying with the Laker girls the night before. Would've been a much easier game if he was remotely on.
And Hayes is averaging 24 mpg to Simmons 27 mpg. So it's not like Simmons is playing way more minutes.
And what was Anderson's +/- (though +/- is kind of a silly stat anyway - Simmons was playing more with the starters wasn't he)? If Frank thought Simmons was playing better than Hayes, then fine, play him at the 3 to close the game. I'm more frustrated that Anderson was getting splinters in his rear when he was having such an impressive game, and would have been (imho) a much better option offensively and defensively than Simmons at the 4.
Hayes is also asked to do more offensively and to be more of a primary weapon when he comes into the game. Simmons is asked to stand on the baseline and chuck whenever he's open (which is a lot), and he hasn't even been very good at that.
Frank's biggest weakness is that he does not have total rule of the team. He has to answer to Ratner/Thorn, and that limits what he can do.
Isn't it like that for all coaches? Even Mike Dunleavy, who's both coach and GM of the Clippers, has to answer to Donald Sterling.
I'll just say that if you've been following the Nets, you should know what the situation is. If you think it's similar to the Clipper situation, I'd have to say you haven't been paying attention.
