Trying to find the right word... nitwit? turnip? potatohead?

You obviously haven't been watching too many games as it's when Cadee and Maric get the least amount of time on court that they struggle... Maric has really stepped it up defensively and is getting his few looks at the other end, but he's really anchoring teh D and that's what is important and a key part of the Kings new identity (that seems to be working) and Cadee is the future of the franchise and has come on leaps and bounds this season... Future leader of the team and it's not a coincidence that the last loss came when his role on the team was a bit off with the introduction of Blake...

Certainly wouldn't be playing a one and done guy over Cadee at this point for significant minutes, even with his NBA experience...

I think Jeromie Hill is probably the only one being hard done by. He's looked good when he's been on the court, but it's been a few games now.

Blake's role with the team is fine unless he suddenly starts shooting the lights out. I've been real impressed with him on defense though, especially his ability to slip around screeners.

At the end of the day, you can only have 5 on the Court at once.

Their 6 - 10 is extremely strong and blows the other benches out of the water.

But, there isn't the same 'fatigue' factor in Basketball to really make having a better bench a huge advantage. It's not quite like Rugby where benches can absolute determine the outcome; i.e. All Blacks demolishing opponents in the last quarter of the game.

The way Blake's played the past couple of games I'd be playing Cadee more!

Really though, it's just an adjustment period at the moment while the three guards get used to their new roles and see how effective Blake can actually be. Will he be at the level of the better PGs here?

He does some things well on D but he hasn't been able to contain people off the dribble. He's going to get more and more of that treatment until he proves he can defend. This league's brutal like that, just ask Dave Andersen!

At the moment I don't think their bench really stands out (unless you're basing it on non-NBL resumes), but having a deep bench is very important in the NBL where many games are played at a high intensity.

If you leave guys out there too long they'll be off the pace of the game, and that means missed jumpers and missed defensive assignments.

Having said that, given the energy systems basketball uses players generally don't need long on the bench in that situation.

"Their 6 - 10 is extremely strong and blows the other benches out of the water."

Which must be why the Cairns bench out-scored them 25-17 in Cairns, and 21-18 in Sydney...

I'm of the view that several NBL coaches are playing their benches too much.

There's no need in a 40 minute game, to have already subbed your entire bench 5 into the game with 3 minutes to go in the first quarter- as DD did on the weekend.

I hope Gaze keeps giving Lisch, Newley and Whittington big minutes, because those are the three main guys who have got them where they are. (Along with Cadee).

Whether it's 40 minutes or 48 minutes doesn't make a huge difference, the ratio of minutes will still be mostly the same eg 36 of 48 mins is similar to 30 of 40 mins.

This is because basketball predominantly uses the creatine phosphate system, which fatigues and regenerates in seconds, so each player has a certain length of time they can stay on court functioning at a high level before needing a rest.

I agree that Melbourne probably sub too much though, they don't play the most high-demanding style at either end of the floor yet only have three players averaging over 25 mins and none over 30.

"Their 6 - 10 is extremely strong and blows the other benches out of the water."

Which must be why the Cairns bench out-scored them 25-17 in Cairns, and 21-18 in Sydney..."

I meant on paper.

Paper is worth only so much though... I would say maybe 6-8 though, which is what Gaze has said that he's more likely to play as a majority of the minutes... Am sure that he's communicated that to those that would normally get minutes (he mentioned Jeromie in a press conference about not getting any game time despite being in good form).

It's not a coincidence that teams with quality benches that contribute are always up there at the end of the season and for once, I'm glad the Kings have some more depth as probably one of their biggest on court criticisms in the past has been bench depth... It's a good problem to have and as long as the players all buy into it and are ready to contribute when needed, then that will go a long way to holding up the trophy at the end of the season like other teams with similar problems have done recently...

Some time in the future when climate change has wiped out all the trees people are going to look back at these posts about paper being worthless and mock your short-sighted foolishness. Think before you post, people!!!!

Play the bench more, especially when the starters look like they are in 1st gear, until they are down, then the get serious - ie Whittington and Powell.

I'm with LV. I think there's a few teams who are playing their bench too many mins. Melbourne is the most obvious example.

It's not always a case of playing your bench too much, or too little. One of the biggest problems with Melbourne (as has been noted) is that they seem to be making subs way too rapidly. When players are only coming on for 2-3 minutes, it's almost impossible for them to get into the flow of the game. This is similar to problems that Aaron Fearne had for years as the Taipans coach, on that he had a fixed substitution pattern in his game plan, both in terms of who would come in for whom, and also in terms of the time frames for these substitutions. It's only since he's learned to relax this concept that the Taipans have started to have some success.

Bench players play a variety of very important roles on a team, and that's the key to the whole thing. It's all very well to have NBA players (or other paper heroes) coming off the bench, but if their playing styles don't match what's required by the team on the floor, it's not going to work. That's what's going on in Melbourne at the moment: witness Wesley hanging around the 3pt line, waiting for a shot - he's been employed as a low post threat, and it's just not working out for MU. It's also why Sydney need Blake and Powell coming off the bench, because their skill sets are better suited to that role than Cadee or Maric's are. Coaches have to build their teams around supporting their best players, and in this case, that's Lisch and Newley.

As for Blake starting in front of Cadee, you have to be kidding. Kidee is having a great year, and is FAR more dangerous than Blake at the moment. Blake is repeatedly being baked by quick opposition guards. He doesn't have the foot speed required to guard the likes of Weeks or Heuir (as shown over the weekend), much less someone like Randle, who would probably break Blake's ankles with an eye-fake. He also doesn't really look like much of a threat taking his own shots.

Wookiee cookie whatever your name is, before you going trolling and calling names, you need to understand this is a forum and each user is entitled to their opinion.

I posted my opinion just like everyone else, the difference between myself and everyone else to you is that unlike you we all have our own opinion not a an opinion with insult.

Back to basketball.

Whilst you are correct Blake might be one and done and caddee is having a fantastic year but when you have the like of lisch Newley Powell Whittington who can all score you jeee balance. That's where Blake comes into it he is a true point guard he will get you in your sets and find shots. Caddee looks for shots for himself near on every time. I don't take anything away from caddee he has been fantastic but to have a successful team going forward I IN MY OPINION feel Blake would be the better option as starter.

Caddee would come of the bench for Blake and lisch playing both PG AND SG he could still get 20+ mins and would be fantastic a scoring creating his own shot capacity.

lol if that's an insult worth bunching your reg grundies about, I must be in the wrong place... I got called 3 different types of veggies the other day in the one post...

But ok, will try to keep this insult free so you don't get upset...

I disagree... I'll indicate to the stats ladder where Cadee is in the top 5 for assists... While he could just be fortunate to be passing to someone who makes their shot, the fact that he's in amongst so many other "pure point guards". I also watched Cadee during the pre-season and from early on, he looked to facilitate others first, so much so that it was worthy of me noting then and while it's not as much his role now, he's definitely capable of it, so I refute fully your statement that he looks to score pretty much every single time...

Hill has been blooded and I think deserving of minutes, it's just crowded at his spot... Liu is a dev player, he's not deserving of anything yet... Moller performed above and beyond in the pre-season, but we shouldn't see him in games that aren't blowouts, it's just how it is...

Damon Heuir has been that development player for a t least two seasons hasn't he? So the results this season from him haven't just happened, he's been groomed and barely gotten any playing time the last couple of seasons as it was?

Youngsters time will come, but they have to earn their playing time...

I don't follow in the ins & outs at the Kings closely enough to comment on the specifics, but its an interesting debate.
The "5 under $400k" rule was supposed to stop bench-stacking, and whilst it probably needs a good tweaking, I agree with the overall idea. Teams don't need 9~11 players all vying for big minutes.
Depending on balance, you probably need 7 guys aiming for an average of high 20's each, and the others are role players and for depth. Even within that 7, probably only 4 or 5 real stars playing the big minutes on a regularly basis, with the others stepping up as required.

I think a professional player should be able to deliver on demand, getting subbed in and out is part of the game, but some of the rotations do puzzle me.

The "5 under $400k" rule was supposed to stop bench-stacking