Artest Off the Bench?

I doubt this will actually but happen, but you never know how effective it will be. Look what San Antonio did with "Manu". By brining him off the bench in the playoffs it actually made him more effecting and more valuble. But that was only in a few playoff games.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">"I'm going to continue playing hard and out of control, like a wild animal that needs to be caged in," - Ron Artest

I think Artest should be the starter until Danny Granger proves he can lockdown NBA players. Most of the talent in the league is at the SG/SF position, so it will be the tough, defensively for Granger to compete as a rookie. Artest is proven and has the DPOY to back it up. I still think it's just a distraction to take focus away from Artest's wild side.</div>

Do you know how hard it is too shutdown NBA players for 40 minutes like Artest does? Granger is probably never going 2 be as good defensively as Artest is. I dont agree with Artest' comments simply because he's always played like that. He's agressive and I think the statement is mainly warning his opponents that he's back and that the brawl wont stop him from playing his style basketball.

 

Danny Granger just played his first NBA game last night, and he was very impressive. He finished with 12 pts, 7 rbs, and 2 assists. He's a great defender, and he's going to be one of the five or so best rookies in the NBA this year. I would definitely entertain the idea of him starting. However, by that I don't mean benching Ron Artest. Last night both Granger and Artest played 31 minutes, so obviously they had to have both been on the court together at some point of time, probably meaning Artest logged some minutes playing Power Forward. I don't think that a Tinsley(or Sarunas)/Jackson/Granger/Artest/J.O'Neal lineup should be out of the question.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">Danny Granger just played his first NBA game last night, and he was very impressive. He finished with 12 pts, 7 rbs, and 2 assists. He's a great defender, and he's going to be one of the five or so best rookies in the NBA this year. I would definitely entertain the idea of him starting. However, by that I don't mean benching Ron Artest. Last night both Granger and Artest played 31 minutes, so obviously they had to have both been on the court together at some point of time, probably meaning Artest logged some minutes playing Power Forward. I don't think that a Tinsley(or Sarunas)/Jackson/Granger/Artest/J.O'Neal lineup should be out of the question.</div>

That lineup would get exploited in the East. O'neal playing the Center? I would put JO at PF, Foster at C, Artest at SF, Jackson at SG, and Tinsley at PG. Like they had the beginning of last season. Granger is in no spot to take over Ron or Steven Jackson's spot. Danny would be a good bench player off the bench. And Ron had 26 pts in the same game that Danny had 12. So that explains how valuable is.

 

I don't get why you would bench Artest...what good can come from it? Bench points? pfff put him in there with the best of them and win your games.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting GotSkillz92:</div><div class="quote_post">That lineup would get exploited in the East. O'neal playing the Center? I would put JO at PF, Foster at C, Artest at SF, Jackson at SG, and Tinsley at PG. Like they had the beginning of last season. Granger is in no spot to take over Ron or Steven Jackson's spot. Danny would be a good bench player off the bench. And Ron had 26 pts in the same game that Danny had 12. So that explains how valuable is.</div>

I'm not saying that Danny Granger is better than Ron Artest, because there's only a few players in the league who are. But to get 12 points and 7 rebounds in his first NBA game ever is damn impressive. Remember, Granger didn't even play in the summer leagues or the training camp. As for him starting, you don't have to play the same lineup ever game. There's going to be nights when the matchup would actually be favorable to Indiana if they started O'Neal at Center and started Granger at Power or Small Forward. You'll see quickly how good of a player Danny Granger is.

 

Wow, I didn't realize how many coaching experts we have here at JBB. To think that Rick Carlisle would follow the philosophy of Red Auerbach, maybe the greatest coach of all time, is just ludicrous. Just because Auerbach is a coaching legend doesn't mean he knows any more than the average JBB poster.

Ok, now that I'm done with the sarcasm, I'd really like to know why this is such a bad idea. The only good point some one brought up was the respect factor. Other than that, there's no reason not to make a guy like Artest a sixth man. Like Sir Dez said, he's still going to be getting the same amount of minutes...it's just that he'll be playing them at different times during the game. Artest will also be finishing game, like always.

The reasons Carlisle would consider this are fairly simple. First, he's coming in fresh in the first quarter, playing against either tired starters or backups. That'll make it easier on him offensively, and it'll also keep the team from an offensive drought when the normal starters would be resting.

It also helps Artest on the defensive end because he won't be exerting as much energy early on in games, so he will be much fresher for the intense defense that the last few minutes require.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting GotSkillz92:</div><div class="quote_post">That lineup would get exploited in the East. O'neal playing the Center? I would put JO at PF, Foster at C, Artest at SF, Jackson at SG, and Tinsley at PG. Like they had the beginning of last season. Granger is in no spot to take over Ron or Steven Jackson's spot. Danny would be a good bench player off the bench. And Ron had 26 pts in the same game that Danny had 12. So that explains how valuable is.</div>
Why can't O'Neal play center? He is a very versatile big man and he has the size to play the five. Actually, O'Neal has been the "backUp" center for the Pacers every year he was with the team. When Brad Miller was out, O'Neal would shift to center and Al Harrington would start at power forward. That won't be a concern.

What I think will be at the Pacers' disadvantage with a lineup like that is Artest. Yes, he's a great defender, but I don't believe he can suffice guarding big men. At 6-7, he's pretty undersized, and his best defense is out on the perimeter. Offensively though, Artest would create a mismatch for any four.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's not jump to conclusions about Granger being starting material just yet. He had a nice game matching up against a scrub player, Nikoloz Tskitishvili. A true test of his readiness will be when he faces a star or superstar at the SF position. Until then Artest should remain the starter, even though you bring up some good point of bringing him off the bench.</div>

Who says that I'm basing my opinion based on one preseason game? You know as well as I do how much I've seen Granger play over the years. I know what he's capable of, and he's capable of starting in the NBA. Of course he's a rookie and will have his ups and downs, especially against the superstars of the NBA, but I'm not suggesting that the Pacers play him 30-40 minutes per game. I'm suggesting that he should start. Like 44 and Dez have said, starting doesn't mean you're taking on a bigger role than the players on the bench, nor does it mean that you'll play a lot of minutes. I think that Granger can start, playing fifteen or so minutes per game, leaving Artest with upwards of thirty minutes to work with. What would be wrong with that?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's not jump to conclusions about Granger being starting material just yet. He had a nice game matching up against a scrub player, Nikoloz Tskitishvili. A true test of his readiness will be when he faces a star or superstar at the SF position. Until then Artest should remain the starter, even though you bring up some good point of bringing him off the bench.</div>Umm....when did I say Granger was starting material? He really doesn't have to be in this situation. All it does is spread out the team's scoring ability to last the whole game. When you start all of your best players, you lose so much when the starters take a blow. If you leave one of your better scorers on the bench, then they can take advantage of all the opportunities it creates, and the team doesn't suffer from as many offensive droughts as it normally would.

All Granger would have to is play a role in the first unit, and like Red Auerbach always said, it's easier to "hide" a player with shotcomings in the starting lineup than it is to do in the middle of a game.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TmacGarnett:</div><div class="quote_post">Stephen Jackson will start at the 2 and the Ron Artest thing will not happen.
Fred Jones is like Josh Smith has no game except his amazing dunks.</div>I don't know what Josh Smith you've been watching, but if you've seen the one I've watched, you know he's got more then dunks in his repetoire. The kid is an absolute stud on the defensive end (note the 10 blocks in one game last year), and his offensive game is improving. He's not just a dunker, that just happens to be what people perceive him as because of his amazing display at the dunk contest and the fact that a huge portion of his field goals were on dunks last year.

On the actual topic now, Artest won't be benched. He's too good of a player and he's the second best offensive player the team has. Granger however, is a hell of a player. He's a great defensive player, great rebounder (14 boards the other night), and he's pretty good on offense as well. His time will come when he starts, but for now, he's likely going to be the first or second guy off the bench for the Pacers this season, because no matter how good he is, he still isn't as good as Artest, and he won't be challenging him for his starting spot, at least not this year.