Start Nick Young?

by hotplate on Nov 2, 2008 9:21 AM EST Comment 21 comments

OK, Its early to start stirring the pot, but how long should we wait? Slow starts have been a problem thus far during the season and preseason. Without Gilbert and Haywood, there's been a lack of firepower starting off games thus far. The one player who has exceeded expectations has been Nick Young. He's shown the ability to create and hit his own shot and seems to be playing in control for the most part. Is it time to move him to the starting lineup? Its tough playing most of the game 10 down and having Nick in the lineup could open things up for Caron and Antawn from the opening tip.

The reason that I'm bringing this up so early in the year is that Comcast Sportsnet showed an interesting graphic last night. Currently, Tayshaun Prince has a streak of over 300 consecutive games started. This leads all active players. Number 2 is Deshawn Stevenson who has STARTED 243 (or so) consecutive games. So making this change will involve much more drama for Eddie Jordan than the usual lineup switch. Does Eddie have a plan for moving Nick Young into the starting lineup? Would Deshawn accept the demotion in a non-disruptive manner? Is it the right move? Too soon to tell?

My own feeling is that if the streak weren't involved, I would give it a try. But since the streak is involved, I don't know how I would handle it. There's potential for drama and pouting which could hurt the team. So I'm glad I'm not a coach. But Eddie needs to do something to get us more than 18 first quarter points.

This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

we need someone who can score off the bench

i’d prefer young as a sixth man.

especially once we get gil back.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Nov 2, 2008 12:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dixon is More Than Capable

I really like Dixon’s game so far this season. I think he can be the “Microwave” off the bench, so I have no qualms about starting Nick Young.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Nov 2, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Read My Comments on the Post Game Thread

You can read my opinion on this here.

To summarize, I say start Nick Young at the point instead of AD. You don’t need a traditional point guard with the Princeton, and Young is more than capable of bringing the ball up the court. DeShawn hasn’t been spectacular to start the season, but he hasn’t been that bad either, and I think he offers more on both ends of the court than AD does. AD doesn’t have an outside shot, and for a guard in this offense, that’s just not acceptable for any extended period of time. Go with Etan, AJ, Caron, DeShawn, and Nick Young.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Nov 2, 2008 1:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wait a few more games

I think that Eddie should wait at least a few more games before considering changing the starting lineup. If he waits a few games he can see if Nick Young can keep up his play or if this is just a couple good games he has had. But, I would agree to taking AD out of the starting lineup before Deshawn mainly because of Deshawn’s streak and because AD has said he likes coming off the bench and changing the game like he did when Gil was healthy.

by lj15 on Nov 2, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't start him at this point

over Stevenson, in part because like hotplate I’m worried about the potential drama it would cause. But I do think Ej should be more open to having Young start the second half, especially in games like last night, when all the energy the team showed in the second quarter disappeared once it went back to the all-starter lineup.

by Jon L on Nov 2, 2008 1:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If this keeps up for a couple weeks

I’d say yes for AD, but I’d rather have DeShawn once Gil comes back. DeShawn plays well off Gil.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 2, 2008 4:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Although I don’t think we can be completely sure how well Stevenson will mesh with Gil. It’ll probably (hopefully?) work out, but I think it’s important to remember that DeShawn has gone from being a slasher to a 3 point shooter since Gil went out, so it probably won’t be exactly like it was 18 months ago. Do you know how much drive-and-dish is a part of Gil’s game? I’d think that those plays would be great for DeShawn, whereas Nick Young being in the game would free Gilbert up for more threes.

by pantslessyoda1 on Nov 2, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know where to start...

• Why change the starting lineup based on two games? NY has had two good games. That’s great. Who knows what happens in game 3 through 82? We don’t know because the guy is young and inconsistent.

• Who cares who starts? If he’s playing so great just give him minutes. Why the obsession with who the “starter” is? During the start of the game we have our two proven scorers in the game. NY will just suck up the oxygen at that time. I think Stevenson is a logical starter because he sets the tone of D against the 2 guard, usually a scorer in the NBA and keeps that player from getting off to a fast start (at least as well as any Wiz can).

• What happens if you start NY and he levels off or struggles? Stops being effective. That’s easy to imagine. You throw him back on the bench and re-start whoever you just benched? That’s pretty poor people management.

• NY is a terrible choice at PG. Why take a guy who is just getting his feet and totally change his role?

• Starting Young takes away our bench spark.

Other reactions:

• The “streak” is irrelevant. To Eddie, to Stevenson, to me. Worst reason to do something in the world. Nobody is going to change their plans based on some dumb stat, especially one that is as irrelevant as second-most-active-player etc. It’s second folks. Among active players. This is no Ripken.

• We know exactly how well Stevenson will mesh with Gil, since they’ve played several hundred games together.

All of this smacks of a silliness and over-reaction that frankly I place beneath the high level of reasoned discourse that I’ve come to expect here. Let’s not ride a roller coaster up and down every game and advocate changing lineups based on who is hot week to week.

by MR on Nov 2, 2008 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I mean, hotplate never stated an strong opinion on the matter

He just suggested we think about it and discuss it. That’s a proper use of the FanPosts. Your disagreement is equally legitimate, but I don’t see why you needed to tell hotplate that he shouldn’t have posed the topic in the first place.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 2, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Replies

Been a busy day, I’m just getting around to this.

Why change the starting lineup based on two games? NY has had two good games. That’s great. Who knows what happens in game 3 through 82? We don’t know because the guy is young and inconsistent.

Perhaps we should wait a few more games, but I don’t think we should wait longer than that. We don’t know for sure that NY will continue to play great, but we do already know that AD’s game is on the decline and Nick Young is the future. The only way you develop the future is by giving him more minutes. That comes with being a starter.

Who cares who starts? If he’s playing so great just give him minutes. Why the obsession with who the "starter" is? During the start of the game we have our two proven scorers in the game. NY will just suck up the oxygen at that time. I think Stevenson is a logical starter because he sets the tone of D against the 2 guard, usually a scorer in the NBA and keeps that player from getting off to a fast start (at least as well as any Wiz can).

We all should care who starts, because the obsession is not ours, it’s Eddie’s. Our starting lineup dug our team a huge deficit in the first quarter, while Nick Young helped lead an 18 point comeback in the second. And yet, Eddie insisted on starting our horrible starting unit to start the second half, and they promptly dug the team another big hole that we couldn’t recover from. Eddie insists on bringing the starters out to start the game and the second half. I suppose it is his philosophy that starters have earned that right. If that’s the case, then Nick Young ought to earn the right to be a starter. Maybe then, we won’t have to always overcome big deficits in the second and fourth quarters.

Alternatively, if we can convince Eddie to start AD but play Nick Young a lot more minutes, then I’d be fine with that as well. But Eddie just doesn’t think outside of the box like that, IMO.

What happens if you start NY and he levels off or struggles? Stops being effective. That’s easy to imagine. You throw him back on the bench and re-start whoever you just benched? That’s pretty poor people management.

That’s what coaches do all the time. That’s what Eddie used to do with Brendan and Etan. But usually, you err on the side of youth and improvement potential. AD has neither.

NY is a terrible choice at PG. Why take a guy who is just getting his feet and totally change his role?

What role change? This is the Princeton! The only difference would be that Nick Young brings the ball up the court. You don’t think he can handle that?

Starting Young takes away our bench spark.

Two words: Juan Dixon. See post above.

The "streak" is irrelevant. To Eddie, to Stevenson, to me. Worst reason to do something in the world. Nobody is going to change their plans based on some dumb stat, especially one that is as irrelevant as second-most-active-player etc. It’s second folks. Among active players. This is no Ripken.

I’m in complete agreement with you on this.

We know exactly how well Stevenson will mesh with Gil, since they’ve played several hundred games together.

Exactly, which is why I recommend benching AD (if he continues to play like he has for a few more games) and not DeShawn. When Gil comes back, we can reevaluate the situation. If DeShawn is still playing like dog poo on defense and Nick Young is still lighting up the scoreboard and making great decisions, then I’d advocate that Nick Young start next to Gil only then.

All of this smacks of a silliness and over-reaction that frankly I place beneath the high level of reasoned discourse that I’ve come to expect here. Let’s not ride a roller coaster up and down every game and advocate changing lineups based on who is hot week to week.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think it’s over-reacting to recognize that it’s better to develop your young talent rather than stick with an aging, declining vet who isn’t helping this team win. In my opinion, there is no longer any upside to starting AD. Even if he puts together a couple of good games, overall he’s going to continue to get worse. Not to mention that he’s playing with an injured wrist. I’d like to see what Nick can do to start halves. I’m ready to look towards the future.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Nov 3, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

For the well thought out, reasoned response.

We’ll just have to disagree on this one.

My final note on the subject will be to suggest that if in the next game AD gets 8 assists, 1 TO, 12 points on 5-8 shooting (which isn’t a hard scenario to imagine) and NY goes 2-11 with 5 points and 4 TOs (also not so hard to imagine) then this whole start-NY-over-AD plan seems kind of silly. THAT"S the scenario I object to. The constant up and down of starting whoever had a good night the previous game.

by MR on Nov 3, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not singling out hotplate

In fact cuppettcj has been the leader on this topic. I’m reacting to the entire discussion on two separate threads, not this specific lead post by hotplate.

To answer hotplates question that leads off his post: at 0-5 we have the discussion. At 2-8 we have the discussion. Now is too early.

I guess I just find it a little frustrating that over the past few weeks several players have been trashed then glorified while others have gone the opposite way. Why don’t we just let things play out before making drastic desperate changes? Just a few weeks ago several people on the board would have had us bench AJ for Blatche. In a few weeks this thread may seem just as silly (or not).

I’m just saying (again) it makes us seem like girly Laker’s fans (who by the way have been scientifically proven to be the whiniest fans in pro sports).

by MR on Nov 3, 2008 6:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

click reply

please

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 3, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, its early

but there are2 reasons why I posted this so soon:
1. I was intrigued by the juxtaposition of the Comcast Sportsnet graphic noting Deshawn’s consecutive start streak with Nick Young’s possible big step forward this year. Obviously, I don’t know any of the parties involved but I would not be surprised if the streak was a point of pride with Deshawn. So I thought it could be interesting factor if any changes were being considered.
2. I’m tired of slow starts, both in the season record and in individual games. I know that preseason means nothing but there were enough bad first quarters in the 7 games to worry me. During the preseason we trailed by scores of 18-14, 23-20, 36-9, and 32-17. In our first 2 regular season games the 1st quarter scores were 23-23 and 31-21. With Arenas and Haywood being replaced by Daniels and Thomas, I question whether we have enough fire power at the start of each game. So I’d rather have the discussion at 0-2 rather than 2-8.

Implied in all of this is my hope that Young really is improved and can contribute CONSISTENTLY. We do need to wait and see how consistently Nick performs. And I’ve become convinced by the comments that if Nick were to be added to the starting lineup, that AD should be the one who sits. And Nick should go back to the second unit when Gil comes back.

by hotplate on Nov 3, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have to be a complete idiot to make a huge change this early in the season.

…Detroit did what??

Sarcasm aside, I think this is a discussion we’ll be having all season, and this a perfectly appropriate time to start.

by Aldo on Nov 3, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

We do need to wait and see how consistently Nick performs.

Even if Nick struggles, I’d rather see him get more minutes to develop his game against the opposing teams’ first unit rather than watch AD continue to fade.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Nov 3, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not Too Early

To answer hotplates question that leads off his post: at 0-5 we have the discussion. At 2-8 we have the discussion. Now is too early.

Why do we always have to dig ourselves out of holes? Why can’t we see the writing on the wall and make good personnel decisions before it’s too late to salvage the season?

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Nov 3, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't

but the two losses haven’t been because of the same thing, as far as I read it. The game 1 loss was due to missed free throws and poor shooting from Butler and Jamison (and maybe poor defense from Stevenson). The second loss was a total lack of rebounding and nearly universally poor defense.

If it was the same recurring issue, that’s when I think you act to stem the tide. But because it’s been a variety of things, I’m fine (well, mostly) with waiting a bit longer to see how things settle out.

by Jon L on Nov 3, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs