Why start him off the bench when the team plays better when he starts? Not only just the team but Marbury. The Marbury and Q combination has not worked for two years why do you think it will work now?I honestly honestly believe Jamal deserves his chance at left bench.
Your projected starting lineup is ok but I would rather start Q, Mal and Steph together. Reason is that we need to spread the floor as much as possible since our C and PF plan on killing opponents in the paint.If Nate can play the way he did in the SL... then Jamal should be the #1 option of the second unit... Nate, Jamal, Nichols, Lee (Balkman 3, Q 2 would start)...
if Nate is still outta control AND we don't make any moves... Mal should start... wouldn't want 2 guys who dominate the ball on the second unit together... plus... with Zach out there... he should be the third option instead of the second...
Completely Agree!Whats Jamal isn't even a great starter first off of, I remember one season Jamal had 20 twenty point games off the bench, one of the best in the NBA. Crawford is only good off the bench where we have no high percentage scoring options, so Crawford could go nut and hit or miss. Jamal doesn't belong on a steady pace offense. His chucking leads to fast break to the defenses, which entirely makes our defense weaker than it already is. Jamal Crawford is too one dimensional to start. Please give me Collins or Q-Rich any day of the week.
Whats Jamal isn't even a great starter first off of, I remember one season Jamal had 20 twenty point games off the bench, one of the best in the NBA. Crawford is only good off the bench where we have no high percentage scoring options, so Crawford could go nut and hit or miss. Jamal doesn't belong on a steady pace offense. His chucking leads to fast break to the defenses, which entirely makes our defense weaker than it already is. Jamal Crawford is too one dimensional to start. Please give me Collins or Q-Rich any day of the week.