Jeff Teague's Role

[Coolbreeze44]

Given the roll Andrew is on orchestrating the offense, what would be your preference?

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Teague goes back to the starting lineup and Wiggins shouldn't let who is on the court with him dictate whether or not he plays well. Plenty of opportunities to create shots for multiple players.

[Coolbreeze44]

Teague goes back to the starting lineup and Wiggins shouldn't let who is on the court with him dictate whether or not he plays well. Plenty of opportunities to create shots for multiple players.

I disagree. This is the best basketball we've seen this organization play in quite a while. I think Teague is more aggressive offensively in the reserve role, and I want to see KAT and Wig continue to develop this two-man game. I really think both players benefit from this change.

[thedoper]

Andrew did a nice job. We're way better with Teague out there. Andrew just needs to continue to be aggressive. I feel the system we are playing with will only benefit multiple ball handlers who can attack.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Teague goes back to the starting lineup and Wiggins shouldn't let who is on the court with him dictate whether or not he plays well. Plenty of opportunities to create shots for multiple players.

I disagree. This is the best basketball we've seen this organization play in quite a while. I think Teague is more aggressive offensively in the reserve role, and I want to see KAT and Wig continue to develop this two-man game. I really think both players benefit from this change.

The key is the aggressiveness.

I'm cool with whichever role (starter or bench) that gets Teague to play with a sense of urgency and aggressiveness.

[Monster]

One question I've been asking myself during this run by Wiggins is...who has he done this against? I specifically think about good defenders but the more I think about I think about teams. Some of the good wings aren't playing right now. I think there are going to be games where starting with a PG and even having a more legit ball handler off the bench in Napier is going to be important. Detroit's trap on Wiggins the other night wasn't exactly difficult for him to get out of. There will be better versions of that at some point right?

What I liked about them bringing Teague off the bench was it showed they were willing to bring a guy back slowly and try different things. One thing about Teague is I don't think he is going to put up any kind of stink about his role or minutes as long as it makes some sort of sense and he is given a chance to contribute.

[Wolvesfan21]

I like Teague playing mostly with the second unit, but if he's playing well he can finish the game too which is more important. The second unit is really weak offensively, so Teague makes it go much better. I'm liking the defense of Wiggins at point. Teague is fairly weak on defense, so he can be exploited in PnR.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

One question I've been asking myself during this run by Wiggins is...who has he done this against? I specifically think about good defenders but the more I think about I think about teams. Some of the good wings aren't playing right now. I think there are going to be games where starting with a PG and even having a more legit ball handler off the bench in Napier is going to be important. Detroit's trap on Wiggins the other night wasn't exactly difficult for him to get out of. There will be better versions of that at some point right?

What I liked about them bringing Teague off the bench was it showed they were willing to bring a guy back slowly and try different things. One thing about Teague is I don't think he is going to put up any kind of stink about his role or minutes as long as it makes some sort of sense and he is given a chance to contribute.

I see zero legitimate reason why we should expect Teague to come off the bench when he's done nothing to lose his job, especially to a rookie in Culver or a second-year player in Okogie. Oh, and it's a contract year for Teague. He's essentially playing for his last big payday.

[Monster]

I'll add that I always thought some Teague with the bench made some sense. Just because he starts doesn't mean he can't be playing an aggressive role with some bench guys a chunk of his minutes. Starting Culver In a game when the Spurs start a bigger PG in Murray makes some sense. When Napier is back it will give them even more options which I think mostly is a good thing.

[apollotsg [enjin:6592798]]

I think our best starting lineup is Culver, Okogie, Wiggins, Covington, and Towns - in pretty small sample size the numbers look pretty amazing. Three solid defenders and two primary offensive weapons - the three defenders don't need the ball to help the team, they are all "do shit" guys - but Culver is showing the potential he could be a 3rd weapon. All of those guys can space but more importantly, they can all drive hard to the paint from the 3pt line and collapse the defense - its what our entire offense is based on right now.

That leaves Teague coming off the bench to lead the knuckleheads off the bench and give them order. Teague has often spoken about taking a lesser role, I can't see him being stuck on the notion of not have a tick next to his name as the starter - I think he knows he is not going to the hall of fame, he isn't going to get a max deal at his age and likely knows what the market will bear for an over 30 ball-dominant PG now.

I think the rotation is Teague comes in for either Culver or Okogie, whoever is not doing better and then sitting whichever Towns/Wiggins is not hot and bringing in Vohn/Layman/Graham - whatever the matchup dictates. Having Teague and layman as the focal point while Towns and Wiggins sit is not so bad, and more importantly - his horrible defense won't be exposed against bench guys and our switching defense won't be taken advantage of with the starting unit.

I really like how this team is shaping up, I am more impressed with the amazing lineup versatility we have - and I also like that Ryan isn't stuck on playing a specific group and is trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.