We have too many bigs

We don't. So, it seems like a pointless exercise.

Other than Nurk locked in at the starting 5, none of our other bigs are guaranteed minutes. No one else has shown they are good enough to be handed a role. So, that means everyone, even the rookies, have a realistic chance at carving out a role for themselves. Not all will do so, but heading into training the staring 4 and back up 4 and 5 minutes are all up for grabs.

The two bigs we added to our roster are nothing like Boban. Both Swanigan and Collins shot the 3 well in college. Both are also excellent passers. Collins is a mobile and active defender and Swanigan has a non-stop motor that has him always in motion. He was also a great rebounder in college, a skill that generally translates to the next level and one that will always be in demand, even in today's modern game.

I specifically mentioned that we were +8 in the 16:40 that Nurk played, but Nurk's past injury history is precisely why we can't have "too many" bigs.

Not sure why you keep bringing up Boban. We have no one remotely like him on our roster. Not even Meyers. Boban is a low post shot blocker who rarely shoots from beyond 10 feet and hasn't attempted a 3-pointer in his NBA career. Meyers is a stretch 5 that shies away from contact.

Besides, I'm not advocating adding more of either. All I'm saying is I'm much more comfortable having "too many" bigs right now than once again having too few come the playoffs.

BNM

 

I don't think you showed that we had too few against the Warriors. I think you showed that our current bigs didn't produce, but that doesn't show that we needed more bigs. Maybe they didn't produce because bigs don't do well against the Warriors (unless they're All-NBA - and OF COURSE you can't have too many all-NBA players).

 

I disagree. For much of Nard's career he's look good against traditional back to the basket centers.
Lopez bros/Howard/Gasol bros/Boogie/etc. Centers like that he's got up for the game and looked like an NBA role player.
Now I don't like Nards the basketball player, nor do I think he's worth whats left on his contract. But he's shown role player ability in more than just that Memphis series.
I think he'd even show he's an NBA role player against Aldridge, if Pop wasn't the coach.

 

That's EXACTLY what I showed.

We started Mo Harkless at PF in all four games. We started Noah Vonleh at center in the first two games of the series. Neither player started a single game at those positions during the regular season. We didn't have enough healthy bigs in that series. Of course they didn't produce. Because of injuries and not enough front court depth, they were both forced to play out of position - and to do so against the best team in the league. If we wouldn't have had too few bigs, we wouldn't have been forced to play those guys out if position.

We gave GSW a much better fight the previous year we had a healthy Plumlee and Ed Davis. Neither are world beaters, but at least we had enough size and rebounding to put up a little resistance against GSW's front court. By comparison, in that series, Vonleh played a grand total of 2 minutes and Harkless played 100% of his minutes at SF. Plumlee got 25.9 minutes at starting center and Ed Davis got 20.5 MPG backing up the 4 and 5 spots. With Plumlee gone, his replacement injured and Ed Davis injured, our lack of front court depth forced Stotts to play guys big minutes out of position and it wasn't pretty.

I'm not sure why you are arguing that, after last years' playoff disaster, adding front court depth, regardless of our first round opponent, is not a good thing. Swanigan and Collins may be rookies, but if we loose any of our veteran bigs, I'd much rather see us playing Collins and Swanigan at the 4 and 5 than any more of Vonleh at the 5 and Harkless at the 4. The former is unproven. The latter is a proven disaster.

BNM

 

And they didn't have Durant.

Because having a lot of crappy players doesn't add up to having a few good ones?

Besides, it wasn't a disaster. The Warriors trampled much better teams than ours. We did pretty well. If you can find "depth" that's as good as Nurk, then fine. But replacing Nurk with any of our current bigs would have resulted in just the same trampling.

 

You're just arguing to argue. I never said we needed 15 Meyers Leonards or any Boban Marjanovices.

Let me simplify my point:

Mo Harkless is not a "big". During the 82 game regular season, he started ZERO games at power forward.

Because of injuries and lack of front court depth, he ended up starting all four games of the GSW series at power forward.

Noah Vonleh is not a starting center. Prior to last April's playoff series, he had never started a single NBA game at center.

Due to injuries and lack of front court depth, he ended up starting the first two games of the GSW series at center.

In the future, to avoid this happening again, we should improve our front court depth. How many Meyers Leonard we have is irrelevant. We only have one. Boban Marjanovic is irrelevant. He doesn't play for us and I never mentioned him or suggested we should pursue him. These are strawman arguments.

Even our playoff opponent is irrelevant. How do you think we would have faired starting Harkless and Vonleh at the 4 and 5 against Aldridge and Gasol, Griffin and Jordan or Favors and Gobert?

We should never be in the position again where we go into the playoffs with Maurice Harkless and Noah Vonleh as our starting power forward and center.

Neil must feel the same way because he used our three first round draft picks to add two more front court players to improve our depth up front.

This is a good thing.

BNM

 

So you are saying Carmelo is the Audi of the NBA?

 

That is completely unfair!!! Meyers doesn't have the handles to be called a guard.

 

Let me simplify MY point: I said we had too many bigs. That's quantity. You say, you can never have too many bigs. Again, quantity. To support your point, you argue that we don't have quality replacements. I agree with that, but it doesn't show that you can't have too many bigs. It shows that you need BETTER players. If we have a bunch of injuries next year, I won't be saying "thank God we can start Zach Morris!" I'll be saying "I guess Harkless will be starting because he's better than Zach Morris!"

 

D'oh! I meant Collins.

Wiseguy. Note that I'm not going back and editing it, I'm leaving it there to be mocked.

 

You might have accidentally come up with a decent nickname. So, you at least have that going for you.

 

I can't wait for the end of the season video montage set to this song.

 

Leaving Nurk to the side, every other front court player we have has glaring deficiencies in their game. Filling the position by committee, as it looks we are doing now, should not be the end goal.

Nurk is an all-rounder keeper and I believe Collins can join him in the future.
Imo, any other front court player should be available to be bundled in a trade that brings back a higher pedigree player (or prospect) that can produce on both ends of the court.

 

Wow I actually just read someone posting. 'I believe Harkless will do a better job starting at the 4, than Collins would.'
Just wow.

 

Why are you guys bringing up the Warriors series? We didn't have Collins, Swanigan, Ed Davis or Nurkic.

 

To be fair, I said Morris, and you've got to admit Harkless would be better than some actor.

 

Because that's my point, we have more front court depth now than then, and that's a good thing.

BNM

 

We replaced Festus Ezeli and Tim Quarterman with Caleb Swanigan and Zach Collins and you are arguing that that is a bad thing. Right...

And just how do you know Swanigan and Collins won't be quality big men? How about we see them at least play in the NBA before we make that call? Maybe even give them a season or two to develop.

I stand by my original point, it's better to have too many healthy big men in September than too few in April.

BNM