<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dallas' win streak over the Hornets ties San Antonio's 17-game run over Boston for the longest active stretch in the NBA. ... The league rejected the Mavs' request for a roster exemption that would've allowed them to carry 16 players because of injuries</div>Also, Van Horn is expected back for at least WCF/Finals if we make it that far.
Really? That's the first I heard of that.I really thought KVH was done for the year, and I know he, and the Mavs would rather him be completely healed before coming back.I also don't know if that's a good idea, due to the whole chemistry factor...If we make it to the WCF, than I wouldn't want to mess up that rotation that got us there.Just my opinion though.
I agree. Even if he is healthy he would be better being the last off the bench due to being out for so long. Of course I'm not a fan of his game so I wouldn't support this. I'll look at the teams +/- to see if that proves my point on his value.http://www.82games.com/0506/0506DAL.HTMSo based on this the best to worse of this team with meaningful minutes is this.1. Nowitzki2. Howard3. Terry4. Harris5. Stackhouse6. Daniels7. Griffin8. Dampier9. Diop10. Van Horn. Though this isn't an accurate number due to things like Nowitzki being out when Van Horn is in but it gives you an idea of their value.
Well, it depends on the opponent to decide if Van Horn can produce or not.If he's in a run-and-gun style game against Phoenix, you definitely want him alongside Dirk.If you're against the Spurs, you don't want him playing too much.
Well looking at those stats I think Daniels and Stackhouse are better than Griffin. Griffin has been starting with Nowitzki also.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Waqas @ Apr 9 2006, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, Griffin is still an important component when it comes to defense.</div>Yeah he is but in most cases I'd take Daniels or Stackhouse ahead of him. Josh Howard is just as good of a defender imo.
Look, man, Griffin is way more consistent than Stack or Daniels. Just start Griffin like you normally did, unless Stack proves he should start the rest of the games + playoffs!
Griffin should start at the 2, considering he's really the only 2 you got, besides Stack.Stack is great off the bench, and helps provide scoring when Dirk goes out.I dont' look at thoes plus/minus's when it comes to role players, only stars.Griffin is the most underappreciated guy on our team, considering how much he does for us, and how good we've been since he's come on board this year.
I know you like his defense but the key to beating the spurs is not letting Duncan rest on defense. Having Griffin out there would allow Duncan to double Dirk and than recover to Griffin.
Huh?What does Griffin have to do with TD?Griffin only guards TD if there's a Switch, or he absolutely has too...he normally guards Manu, or Tony P if Terry or Harris aren't.
I meant that Tim Duncan would guard Griffin if Bowen guards Dirk. If you put in Stackhouse instead of Griffin that will be a much tougher assignment for Duncan to handle. Duncan would be forced to guard Dirk which is what happened last game.
Okay, but if you leave Griffin open, he's proven time and time agian, that he'll hit that open shot. He's a very efficient on the offensive side of the court, he knows his role and won't shoot much, but if they are leaving him open, he takes the shot, and makes it most of the time.Maybe in a mathup type deal, like agianst the Spurs, Griffin might not start, but in general he's the best guy we have to start at SG, against the Clipps in the first round, and if we advance past the spurs as well.
Well Duncan recovered pretty well against Griffin and Griffin wasn't quick enough to go around Duncan. At least that is what happened the last time Griffin started against the spurs. Stackhouse starting seems to be working. Stackhouse has been more efficient since Avery started him and Daniels is more of a spark off the bench than Griffin. They are all pretty much even so it is a hard decision for Avery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marvinmartian @ Apr 9 2006, 08:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, but if you leave Griffin open, he's proven time and time agian, that he'll hit that open shot. He's a very efficient on the offensive side of the court, he knows his role and won't shoot much, but if they are leaving him open, he takes the shot, and makes it most of the time.Maybe in a mathup type deal, like agianst the Spurs, Griffin might not start, but in general he's the best guy we have to start at SG, against the Clipps in the first round, and if we advance past the spurs as well.</div>I agree that Griffin should start against the Clippers or whoever we see in the first round, but maybe against the Spurs, they should start Stack or Daniels. I would prefer Daniels starting because i like stack coming off the bench, but was what we see of late, Stack has been starting in front of Daniels. None the less, Stack is a harder matchup for TD than Griffin.Dallas SAC-Diop C-Rasho/NazrF-Dirk F-TDF-Howard F-BowenG-Terry G-ParkerG-Stack G-Ginobliwe can agree that Either Rasho or Nazr would gaurd Diop, Bowen on Dirk, Parker on Terry, Ginobli on Howard, and then that would leave Stack being gaurded by TD. i think they could switch Ginobli on Stackhouse and put TD on Howard, but we would still be at an advantage in my opinon. i think whoever Duncan gaurds, they need to play near the 3-point line so A) TD will be away from the lane to block shots and clog the middle, and hard to double Dirk.
Look, guys, Dallas got their best games WITH Griffin in the game, so why don't we just have him start?What has he done not do deserve it?
Right now Dallas is winning without a bench. So when Harris comes back the bench should improve a lot and the starters seem to work well together so why not keep Stackhouse as the starter? Might as well get used to that lineup since that is the lineup that matches up the best against San Antonio.
I'm agreeing with Mavsfan on this one. Stack should keep the starting spot, he seems to have taken well as of lately with his assits being up and his shot selection being better. Also, it makes teams have to pick their poison with Terry, Howard, Stack, Dirk out there. Also, having the luxury of bringing Daniels off the bench, enables us to bring a similar playing to Stack off the bench to provide energy/scoring. So there's no dropoff.And against a team like the Spurs, they had trouble guarding all our players, we were able to switch and get the matchup we wanted most of the time. Putting Bowen on Dirk, left Howard on Duncan and that led to Howard going off. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look, guys, Dallas got their best games WITH Griffin in the game, so why don't we just have him start?</div>Our winning streak is over with, you move on. Were doing good without Griff starting so I don't see why we have to place him in the starting lineup the minute he gets back. Let Stack and Howard start, and Daniels/Griff come in for them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Waqas @ Apr 9 2006, 03:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look, guys, Dallas got their best games WITH Griffin in the game, so why don't we just have him start?What has he done not do deserve it?</div>Yes Mavs played well and had a good streak with Griff starting. But the only reason he got a starting role was because Howard was hurt. Unless he doesnt come back before Harris, I highly doubt you will see Girff as a starter. He'll go back to his role playing minutes for defence and come in during big wins, but idk when he is expected to come back
Plus all the time Griffin has been out with injury could alter our chemistry right before the playoffs. I just don't like switching the lineup right before the playoffs just becaise Griffin might be better than Stackhouse. Though I've criticized Stackhouse before he is playing much better as a starter. I think Howard takes a lot of the pressure off Stackhouse. Also Howard gets the better defender on the other team which gives Stackhouse a favorable matchup.
