Wolstat: Raptors deepest roster in years

jeffb · 10-22-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

MONTREAL - While Toronto’s starting five don’t stack up favourably with those of the league’s elite squads, the reserves project to be one of the better backup groups in the NBA.

There might not be a big name besides Jose Calderon, who is widely expected to end up backing up Kyle Lowry, but that doesn’t mean the group won’t be effective.

Though Ed Davis was held out and Terrence Ross played sparingly for precautionary reasons in Friday’s 107-88 win over the Knicks, the bench was still excellent for the Raptors, tallying 47 points to New York’s 25.

Amir Johnson missed only one shot and grabbed five rebounds to go along with his 14 points, two steals and two blocks. John Lucas also only missed one shot and had six points in each of the third and fourth quarters, while Calderon scored eight points, Linas Kleiza added five and Alan Anderson was steady at both ends.

The unit gives Dwane Casey some firepower to call on and Johnson, Davis, Anderson and Dominic McGuire are capable of playing excellent defence and doing the job on the glass, while Ross is expected to provide that as well once he adapts to the NBA.

Calderon was once the best backup point guard in the league and will be close to that level again, while Lucas arguably is the best third-stringer going and will make a case for considerable minutes with his Vinnie (The Microwave) Johnson-esque scoring bonanzas.

This is the deepest the Raptors have been in years and the players expect that to be an advantage over the course of a long season.

Raptors reserves could be great | Raptors | Sports | Toronto Sun

LOG · 10-22-2012, 10:11 AM

I said this for a while our bench is a big advantage and they will help us to win games

**fancylad** · 10-22-2012, 10:38 AM

as we've seen before depth means so little in the NBA.

jeffb · 10-22-2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

as we've seen before depth means so little in the NBA.

carp · 10-22-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

as we've seen before depth means so little in the NBA.

Agreed. That's why there is always talk about shortening rotations.

jeffb · 10-22-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carp

Agreed. That's why there is always talk about shortening rotations.

Please, outside of the star packed teams most teams rely on depth to win games. If you're not 10 deep you're pretty much screwed. Ask Denver if they don't rely on depth. Ask Chicago if they won't rely on their depth to try and make the playoffs this season with Rose out for 50-60 games. Depth also means you can absorb an injury to a key player(s) and still win games.

LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! · 10-22-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

as we've seen before depth means so little in the NBA.

Tell that to the Dallas Mavericks who won the 2011 nba championship, the dominant San Antonio Spurs or even closer to home, the 2007 Toronto Raptors who depended on their depth.

**fancylad** · 10-22-2012, 11:06 AM

maybe my initial post was too harsh, but really depth isn't near as important as having one or two guys that are that much better than the rest.

Anyways i'm glad we have depth. it's nice that the bench doesn't totally suck, but a. guys like dominic mcguire, anderson are virtual nobodys and just hearing we have the best third stringer at any position at any position made me kind of chuckle. Never at any point in the history of the NBA is there going to be a third string PG showdown which will impact a game.

Anyways like i said i'm glad we have some depth, but in the end when your first team is average, i'm not sure how much a deep bench will help. Hopefully it does.

**fancylad** · 10-22-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!!

Tell that to the Dallas Mavericks who won the 2011 nba championship, the dominant San Antonio Spurs or even closer to home, the 2007 Toronto Raptors who depended on their depth.

Dallas and San antonio won on the skills of their best players. Not because of a deep bench.

the one team you can use the depth argument for effectively is the detroit pistons of however many years ago.

the 2007 Raptors were up against the shittiest division and conference ever and were killed in the 1st round of the playoffs by 'star' players namely Kidd and one Vince Carter and to an extent Richard Jefferson. and mikki Moore.

LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! · 10-22-2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffb

Depth also means you can absorb an injury to a key player(s) and still win games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

maybe my initial post was too harsh, but really depth isn't near as important as having one or two guys that are that much better than the rest.

What happens when one of those guys gets injured? The Lakers wished they had depth in 2008 against the Celtics. As good as Kobe, Odom and Gasol are/were the Celtics' starting lineup was just as good if not better and their bench was much better. The loss of Bynum was huge and they weren't able to make up for it. Depth also helps key players to get some rest. The Suns for example (05-07 mainly), had a few key players and were generally 7, maybe 8 deep. That wasn't enough. Their key guys took a toll due to how much they had to play throughout the season. Their lack of depth showed when they played against the Spurs who always have depth.

Regarding the raps having some good 3rd stringers, it's better than having random 3rd stringers. If for example, Jose gets injured or his dealt and no PGs are acquired, John Lucas III isn't a horrible backup for Lowry.

LET'S GO RAPTORS!!!!! · 10-22-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

Dallas and San antonio won on the skills of their best players. Not because of a deep bench.

the one team you can use the depth argument for effectively is the detroit pistons of however many years ago.

the 2007 Raptors were up against the shittiest division and conference ever and were killed in the 1st round of the playoffs by 'star' players namely Kidd and one Vince Carter and to an extent Richard Jefferson. and mikki Moore.

Yes, and having a deep bench to rest your players or compensate for when one gets injured surely doesn't matter at all.

Dallas - countless times players on the team stated how almost any one of them could be a starter in the league.

Raptors - you don't think that it helped having a nice bench? Also, losing a "depth guy" like Garbajosa was huge. For a team like that with only 1 "star" - CB4, you need depth. Every piece of the machine has to be available and working.

Depth gives your team some options and some peace of mind too.

jeffb · 10-22-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

Anyways i'm glad we have depth. it's nice that the bench doesn't totally suck, but a. guys like dominic mcguire, anderson are virtual nobodys and just hearing we have the best third stringer at any position at any position made me kind of chuckle.

Who said we have the best 3rd stringers? We're pretty good 1 through 10 depth wise with a couple decent 3rd stringers in Gray/Lucas. To say we're 3 deep at every position is just plain wrong. And imo Anderson is a very solid player to have in th 10-12 range on the depth chart, put him down all you want but he's probably one of our most consistent depth players at both ends we have and rarely makes bad decisions.

**fancylad** · 10-22-2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffb

Who said we have the best 3rd stringers?

ummm the article you posted.

Shifty.py · 10-22-2012, 11:47 AM

there is no real gain in having more than 3-4 good bench players
We have 8

jeffb · 10-22-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad

ummm the article you posted.

Oh, I thought you meant a poster said that. Yeah, I disagree that we have the best 3rd stringers in the league overall. But for a team that is only 2yrs into reuilding after Bosh left I like the depth we have and the direction we're going. BC's patience hopefully starts paying off.

LKeet6 · 10-22-2012, 12:15 PM

wow, i'm really surprised there's a debate on the value of having depth. I kinda see the logic of people who are saying it's not that important but it's a new idea on me!

i love our depth and think it will serve us well.

as for teams with star players, they can't play the whole game!? If a team can just hang in there against them and their bench kills it that can win you the game. Last year's lakers suffered from a lack of depth imo.

AR1815 · 10-22-2012, 12:18 PM

I don't know, I kind of like having a deep team. Insures against injuries, makes us capable of playing at a high level for the full 48 mins, and gives us more options, ultimately making the team more dangerous. Still, wouldn't mind trading 2/3 guys (looking at Jose/Amir/Ed) to get a marquee player, though.

MikeToronto · 10-22-2012, 12:20 PM

I'd support those saying that stars are more important than depth - in fact, I've been complaining about the overabundance of bench-level players who start on our team for years now.

However, if one can't quite attract super-stars, one can certainly improve depth. We still lack a franchise player, or even an All-Star level player for that matter, and so are not likely to go anywhere - and that makes me sad long-term.

**fancylad** · 10-22-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeToronto

I'd support those saying that stars are more important than depth - in fact, I've been complaining about the overabundance of bench-level players who start on our team for years now.

However, if one can't quite attract super-stars, one can certainly improve depth. We still lack a franchise player, or even an All-Star level player for that matter, and so are not likely to go anywhere - and that makes me sad long-term.

+1.

It's not like i'm against depth. Obviously it's good to have more options, but it's just that we don't have any can't miss options right now, and those teams that do, regardless of their second or third options will always end up on top.

LX · 10-22-2012, 01:13 PM

It's not that I'm against depth. I just think it will mean more once there is a definitive core in place that the depth can then fall behind. Without that the depth will mean too much of a muddle, with no good sense of who should take on what roles. I'm big on role definition and players buying into the proper roles. Depth without much definition at the top really gets in the way of all that, as it has for years now. For progress to occur this season, even if the record isn't greatly improved, there has to be a good sense of who is going to define this team and which players will fit with that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-22-2012, 10:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
LOG is trying to learn tolerance, and let others believe what they want to believe. Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,204 Representing:	I said this for a while our bench is a big advantage and they will help us to win games

10-22-2012, 10:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
fancylad is travis pickin' nosce te ipsum Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: east side. Posts: 13,825 Representing:	as we've seen before depth means so little in the NBA.

10-22-2012, 11:06 AM	#8 (permalink)
fancylad is travis pickin' nosce te ipsum Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: east side. Posts: 13,825 Representing:	maybe my initial post was too harsh, but really depth isn't near as important as having one or two guys that are that much better than the rest. Anyways i'm glad we have depth. it's nice that the bench doesn't totally suck, but a. guys like dominic mcguire, anderson are virtual nobodys and just hearing we have the best third stringer at any position at any position made me kind of chuckle. Never at any point in the history of the NBA is there going to be a third string PG showdown which will impact a game. Anyways like i said i'm glad we have some depth, but in the end when your first team is average, i'm not sure how much a deep bench will help. Hopefully it does.

10-22-2012, 11:47 AM	#14 (permalink)
Shifty.py is eyeing playoffs FTMFW Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,227 Representing:	there is no real gain in having more than 3-4 good bench players We have 8

10-22-2012, 12:15 PM	#16 (permalink)
LKeet6 is n't Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Liverpool (UK) Posts: 1,354 Representing:	wow, i'm really surprised there's a debate on the value of having depth. I kinda see the logic of people who are saying it's not that important but it's a new idea on me! i love our depth and think it will serve us well. as for teams with star players, they can't play the whole game!? If a team can just hang in there against them and their bench kills it that can win you the game. Last year's lakers suffered from a lack of depth imo.

10-22-2012, 12:18 PM	#17 (permalink)
AR1815 is set adrift on a memory bliss of you. The Blond Superman Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 842 Representing:	I don't know, I kind of like having a deep team. Insures against injuries, makes us capable of playing at a high level for the full 48 mins, and gives us more options, ultimately making the team more dangerous. Still, wouldn't mind trading 2/3 guys (looking at Jose/Amir/Ed) to get a marquee player, though.

10-22-2012, 12:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
MikeToronto is Gam zeh ya'avor The Gatekeeper Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,508 Representing:	I'd support those saying that stars are more important than depth - in fact, I've been complaining about the overabundance of bench-level players who start on our team for years now. However, if one can't quite attract super-stars, one can certainly improve depth. We still lack a franchise player, or even an All-Star level player for that matter, and so are not likely to go anywhere - and that makes me sad long-term.

10-22-2012, 01:13 PM	#20 (permalink)
LX is a belly putter in a world of crotch shots In the Paint Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 23,394 Representing:	It's not that I'm against depth. I just think it will mean more once there is a definitive core in place that the depth can then fall behind. Without that the depth will mean too much of a muddle, with no good sense of who should take on what roles. I'm big on role definition and players buying into the proper roles. Depth without much definition at the top really gets in the way of all that, as it has for years now. For progress to occur this season, even if the record isn't greatly improved, there has to be a good sense of who is going to define this team and which players will fit with that.